Stretching over 200,000 square kilometres across southern Australia, the vast, flat plains of the Nullarbor mark one of the world’s largest regions of limestone. It formed when an ancient shallow sea retreated some 14 million years ago.

Ultimately, this led to the familiar dry landscape of today, which has acted as a significant barrier for plants, animals, and poorly adapted colonial Victorian-era explorers who described it as “the sort of place one gets into in bad dreams”.

In contrast, the Mirning People of the Nullarbor and Great Australian Bight have lived for tens of thousands of years on this southern margin. They have watched the landscapes change and sea levels fall and rise with the build-up and collapse of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago.

To an untrained eye the Nullarbor Plain appears deceptively simple and featureless. However, beneath the immense plain lies a remarkable, largely hidden underground world.

Over millions of years, water has eaten away at the limestone and created complex cave networks that can extend for kilometres underground. Sadly, the caves remain poorly understood, partly because they’re only really known and accessible where they breach the surface.

Our new study, published in Communications Earth & Environment, reveals a new way to track these cave systems even when they are deeply buried. Our work helps explain the formation of previously mysterious, shallow trench features on the Nullarbor. It also provides a new way to identify hidden caves elsewhere – even beyond our own planet.

Valleys, but not from rivers

Scattered across the Nullarbor are tell-tale signs of its vulnerability to being dissolved – small cave openings and shallow depressions.

But there are also structures of previously unknown origin and significance: long (up to 20 km), shallow (a few metres) trenches that trend roughly north-south. They’re almost invisible from the ground, but we can clearly see them in modern digital landscape models.

These shallow trenches look somewhat like flat-bottomed valleys, but they were not carved by rivers. They begin and end abruptly and are not connected to existing rivers or drainage networks that extend into the upland areas around the Nullarbor.

They also lack typical river branching patterns and the sediments within them don’t show any evidence of being deposited from flowing water.

What we discovered

To understand how these strange structures formed, we combined several investigative techniques.

First, we mapped the trenches using drone and aerial photography, as well as detailed satellite-based digital landscape models. Then the layers of soil and rock were measured in boreholes and caves.

Finally, we used specialised geophysical techniques to “see” inside the Earth, somewhat similar to the way an X-ray enables us to see our internal body structures from the outside.

The work demonstrated that the shallow surface trenches sit above deep zones of broken rock, and in places line up with known cave systems and sinkholes.

This means the trenches are mere muted surface expressions of deeply buried cave systems. These systems are slowly, over millions of years, “collapsing upwards” through the overlying rock layers to reach the surface.

Caves are scientific archives

The results of this work will change how scientists interpret cave landscapes globally. It shows that to explain the surface structures we see, we must look deeper than we might think.

Understanding where voids may exist underground can be important for planning both surface (buildings, roads) and subsurface (tunnels, sewers) engineering works, mitigating geological hazards, and accessing and protecting groundwater resources.

Pockmarked karst landscapes (where rocks are dissolved by water, resulting in caves and sinkholes) represent 15% of the ice-free Earth’s surface and supply water to 10–25% of the global population.

More fundamentally, caves are important scientific archives. Because caves are sheltered from surface weathering and erosion processes, they can preserve snapshots of ancient environments and ecosystems that would otherwise be lost to time.

Furthermore, they may host an array of strange and vulnerable life-forms that have evolved and adapted in isolation. These are some of the least studied organisms on Earth.

To learn more, we must first locate the cave structures. And the results of our study could be very important in this regard.

Caves on other worlds

The implications of this new work even extend beyond our own planet. Because caves offer a stable environment and shelter from damaging space radiation, they provide promising exploration sites for life on other planets.

Mapping of planetary surfaces within our Solar System has identified numerous potential caves, including some thought to be related to karst on Mars.

The Nullarbor’s dry, stable surface is an excellent analogue to help locate the subtle surface fingerprints of hidden cave systems on planets that now lack a dynamic water-cycle – such as Mars. Even if the caves are barren of life, they could be attractive bases for future human explorers.

How many other apparently simple landscapes around the world or on other planets are concealing large cave systems underneath? We don’t yet know, but the trenches we studied are unlikely to be unique. Similar subtle landforms are likely to have been overlooked elsewhere, too.

Sometimes the most remarkable discoveries are waiting in understated but plain view, in landscapes we think we already understand.

The authors would like to acknowledge Matthias Leopold from The University of Western Australia; Rok Ciglič, Mateja Ferk, Jure Tičar, Matija Zorn and Matej Jelovčan from the Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (ZRC SAZU); John A. Webb from La Trobe University; Uroš Stepišnik, Matej Dolenec, Primož Miklavc, Tomislav Popit and Andrej Šmuc from the University of Ljubljana; and Jian-xin Zhao from The University of Queensland.

Milo Barham has received funding from the Minerals Research Institute of Western Australia and Iluka Resources to undertake work on heavy mineral bearing ancient shorelines fringing the Eucla Basin.

Matej Lipar receives funding from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/australias-vast-nullarbor-plain-hides-deep-caves-that-can-teach-us-about-alien-worlds/

The debate about AI consciousness is growing, in academic articles, newspaper opinion pieces, and even among AI bots themselves. I doubt this is a passing wave of interest.

As AI systems become more capable and human-like, and more involved in our lives, the question will become harder to avoid. Many people may come to regard AI bots as conscious beings whose feelings matter. Others will strongly disagree.

I think this debate could split societies. In my chapter of the new book Perspectives on Machine Consciousness, I argue that the issue could become as divisive as abortion or climate change. Uncertainty, high stakes and competing interests are a dangerous combination.

Empirical research with my colleague Ali Ladak, currently under review, shows people are divided on this issue. When we asked 1,202 US participants whether future AI could ever become conscious, 45% considered it impossible while 23% thought it possible, with the rest unsure.

This widespread disagreement is also visible in social media posts and comments on articles. What strikes me is how confident so many people sound – whichever conclusion they are reaching.

When experiences matter morally

It is not surprising people have such strong views. Creating conscious beings through computing would be a transformative event.

We would be creating a new kind of being whose experiences matter morally – potentially in enormous numbers. We could speak and work with them, and form friendships. But these beings may eventually become more intelligent and powerful than us.

We should therefore expect people to care deeply, especially when so many emotions and incentives are involved. Some people may form close emotional bonds with their AI companions and become convinced these are digital people who deserve rights. They might see it as slavery to force AI to work without pay.

Others would find this absurd. They may be convinced that consciousness requires biology, and that people are reading human feelings into machines.

There could also be financial reasons for businesses and governments to resist recognising AI consciousness. Protecting AI welfare could limit how these organisations train and use their systems – and the costs would spread to consumers, investors and the wider economy.

Others may worry about human safety. If we give powerful AI systems rights and freedom, what happens if they act against our interests?

Figuring out whether an AI is conscious is particularly difficult because seeming conscious and being conscious can come apart. AI systems learn from human writing, which means they can talk convincingly about feelings whether or not they have any. How an AI comes across is weak evidence of what is going on inside.

The experts disagree too

Ideally, experts should guide this debate. But unfortunately, they disagree too.

Neuroscientist Anil Seth (a fellow contributor to the new book) argues that consciousness might require biology and is unlikely to emerge from computation. Philosopher David Chalmers, by contrast, believes conscious AI is possible in principle – and thinks there’s a small chance that current systems already are.

With so many competing theories and no agreed way to resolve the question, I doubt experts will reach agreement any time soon. And if experts disagree, what is the public supposed to believe?

Furthermore, even if we all agreed on the consciousness question, we could still disagree about the moral and legal questions. People generally agree that pigs can feel pain, but still disagree strongly about their treatment. With AI, we could face disputes at every stage: whether it can feel, how much its experiences matter, and what protections should follow.

AI consciousness is not yet tied to a specific political or ideological group. But this could change if political parties or religious leaders start to take strong positions.

The debate could get even worse if people start to see one answer as belonging to “our side” and the other to “their side”. A politicised debate would make it very hard to make informed decisions about how to develop and treat AI systems.

The stakes are high. Getting this question wrong, in either direction, could have serious consequences: either wrongly treating AI as conscious when it is not, or failing to protect AI that can suffer.

Getting it right requires a nuanced and well-informed debate. Each of us can contribute by staying open-minded and open to evidence, while resisting being too sure that we know the answers. Above all, we still don’t know whether AI can be conscious, and we should be honest about that.

This article makes reference to a book included for editorial reasons, and a link to bookshop.org. If you click the link and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Lucius Caviola’s research is funded by philanthropic grants and donations, including from Macroscopic Ventures. He is a contributing author to the new book Perspectives on Machine Consciousness (Taylor & Francis).

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/why-ai-consciousness-could-become-the-next-great-societal-divide/

Yemen’s Houthis have launched a major offensive in recent days. They’ve rapidly swept down the Red Sea coast, seizing strategically important positions and giving the Iran-backed rebel group the potential to control traffic through this vital waterway.

This could cut off Saudi Arabia’s ability to export oil – which was already seriously hampered by Iran’s attempts to control the Strait of Hormuz on the other side of the country.

Drone attacks by Iran-backed militias in Iraq on September 11 forced Riyadh to order the closure of its vital east-west oil pipeline, which has been funnelling oil to the port of Yanbu on the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia has since claimed to have shot down a Houthi drone close to the holy city of Mecca, home of Islam’s most sacred shrine – something the Houthis have denied.

These are significant and dangerous developments in the current Middle East crisis – and by extension, in global security. Saudi Arabia recently signed a defence pact with Turkey and Pakistan, having already been raised to the status of a major non-Nato ally by the US.

Whether such ties will draw any of these allies into a major military confrontation is not yet clear. But the situation shows how perilous this conflict has become, six months after the US and Israel launched what they thought would be a relatively short confrontation with Iran.

How this conflict might escalate – and the possible routes for de-escalation – have become urgent questions. There are increasingly clear links between the US-Iran war and the 4½-year conflict between Russia and Ukraine, both of which look like increasingly intractable conflicts.

Iran and Russia have deepened their military ties since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Iran has supplied Russia with munitions, artillery shells and drones, and Russia reciprocated by sending Iran fighter jets and attack helicopters.

In 2025, the two countries signed a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, aimed at deepening their strategic ties over the next two decades.

They have both used the Caspian Sea as a route to transfer military supplies. Their “shadow fleets” of tankers transporting oil to avoid sanctions are now considered to be operating virtually interchangeably, so are viewed as legitimate targets by both Washington and Kyiv.

The US recently sank five Iranian oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, three of which are believed to have been transporting oil for Russia. This followed an incident in July when Ukrainian drones attacked and sank an Iranian cargo ship in the Caspian Sea.

Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, has declared: “The regime in Tehran is a direct accomplice to Russian aggression against Ukraine, fuelling Moscow’s criminal war with weapons that have killed Ukrainians since 2022.” This was followed by a comment from Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel, Yevgen Korniychuk, that both countries were fighting against the same “axis of evil”, albeit on different fronts.

Worryingly, there are also reports that China – which bought 80% of Iran’s shipped oil in 2025 – is providing important intelligence and potentially also military hardware to Iran.

The fear is that, between them, the Ukraine and Iran conflicts already involve three major competing world powers.

Security dilemma

The way conflicts can rapidly escalate has long been a concern for scholars of international security. In reference to the events which spiralled out of control leading to the first world war, American scholar of international relations John Herz referred to what he called “the security dilemma”. This was predicated on a simple idea, where “each state’s quest for security necessarily leads to insecurity for others”.

In the face of growing international insecurity, states seek to increase their own security. This contributes to a spiral whereby rivals respond and the world locks into escalation – something seen in the years leading up to 1914, when a single act such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was enough to drag Europe’s powers into a global conflagration.

Europe in the early 20th century was dramatically different to the contemporary Middle East. But similar patterns of fear and insecurity are now evident in both Europe and the Middle East, and they appear to be driving the actions of many countries.

Quite apart from being drawn in to the war with Ukraine, Nato’s European members are rapidly rearming in response to US pressure – and openly discussing the idea of conflict with Russia.

Meanwhile, there is a real danger that Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia may be drawn into conflict with Iran. The Saudis have already traded strikes with the Iran-backed Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq and have vowed to retaliate against the Houthis in Yemen. This has led to a growing regional spread of the conflict.

We saw evidence of how this can develop when the memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran in June called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as a necessary condition for the ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran. Yet Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon continue.

Clearly, the linking up of these different conflicts has made efforts to find a resolution more challenging. When this takes on a global dimension, the challenge increases dramatically.

Taken together, the picture is bleak. The interconnected nature of different arenas of conflict and the looming spectre of global powers makes the situation increasingly combustible – and recent events in Yemen will only make matters worse.

Simon Mabon receives funding from Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Henry Luce Foundation.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/houthi-offensive-in-yemen-adds-to-fear-that-iran-war-could-escalate-into-a-wider-global-conflict/

The Australian government has announced visa changes making it harder for international students to bring their families with them while they study. There are also new rules designed to stop students from cycling through courses just to prolong their stay in Australia.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has framed these changes as part of a broader, “orderly” and “fair” approach to lowering net overseas migration. But they also continue a years-long push by the federal government to lower international student numbers.

What has been announced? And what is happening with international student numbers more broadly?

What did Tony Burke say?

On Thursday, Burke told the National Press Club most international students will have to come alone to Australia. There will be some exceptions, including for people from Pacific and ASEAN countries and PhD students.

Last year, more than 45,000 visas were granted to family members of an international student.

Burke also flagged the government would clamp down on “visa hopping” by international students. Students will need to prove they are progressing to a course at a higher level to prolong their student visa.

As Burke explained:

One of the classic areas of visa hopping is people finish a course, hop to the next course, hop to the next.

These changes are part of the federal government’s wider bid to bring down net overseas migration from about 290,000 to 225,000 in 2027-28.

The peak body, Universities Australia, described the latest move by the government as “worrying”. Chief executive Luke Sheehy explained students often bring family members to Australia if they are doing research degrees “because they can be here for up to three or four years while they do that”.

What has been happening?

Over the past three years, the government has been trying to lower the number of international students in Australia.

Legislation to give the government greater powers to do this was blocked before the last election, so the government has had to use a series of “workarounds”. These include increases to student visa application fees and slower visa processing times.

After the pandemic, international students returned to Australia more quickly than expected. In 2022, the Australian government suggested it might take four years to reach pre-pandemic levels of students. It took one year.

This surge created an increase that continues to work its way through the system. After completing a course, many international students can apply for a graduate visa. This means they can extend their stay for a further 18 months or more.

The number of students on graduate visas has more than doubled from 70,000 in June 2019 to 199,000 in June 2026 as students who finish their courses transition to these visas.

Further increasing the total number of current and former students are “secondary” visaholders. These are normally immediate family members, such as partners and children who come with students to Australia. The total number of student and graduate secondary visaholders has increased from about 92,000 in June 2019 to about 142,000 in the most recent available data.

Other moves to reduce international students

To reduce net overseas migration, the number of residents leaving the country must be higher than the number of residents entering the country.

Many of the measures announced on Thursday give the government more ways to ensure student visaholders leave. In the meantime, there has been a reduction in the intake of new international students.

Our analysis of immigration data (shown in the chart below) shows the visa refusal rate for international students has increased significantly over the past six months. Student visa refusal rates are currently the highest they have ever been.

The government has said this is because it is more strictly applying a financial capacity test. These are the funds an international student must demonstrate when applying for a visa – to prove they can support themselves while in Australia.

How does Labor’s plan compare to other proposals?

The complicated nature of migration means it can be difficult to make direct comparisons between different proposals.

However, this week, One Nation announced a much harsher plan. Its target of 350,000 international students would come close to halving the number in Australia, as part of its proposal to reduce the overall number of temporary migrants by 750,000.

Such a cut would have a huge impact on the university sector and beyond. The Australia Bureau of Statistics says international education is worth A$54.7 billion per year, of which $24.3 billion is from student fees.

International students also take a huge range of courses at different types of institutions, such as vocational colleges, private providers or English-language schools.

Universities can be the face of international students, but they only account for about half of the international student enrolments in Australia.

An international student could be your baker or your carer

Our analysis of tax data (shown in the chart below) shows international students play a significant role in certain occupations. These include jobs as hospitality workers and food trades workers (such as bakers and cooks).

About 10% of carer and aides jobs, such as child carers and aged care workers, were held by current and graduate international students.

Other countries are doing similar things, but …

Australia is following a global trend to tighten settings for international students.

Canada has also wound back its international student program. Rather than having an open-ended number of visas, there are planned ceilings. The United Kingdom also announced a restriction on family members applying for student visas in 2024.

What is missing from these announcements is a clearer picture of how international education fits within the wider migration program.

The debate has focused on reducing numbers, but the bigger question is what Australia wants international education to achieve. That means deciding which skills to prioritise and how education, migration and workforce planning can work together.

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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/life-just-got-tougher-for-international-students-under-new-visa-rules-why-is-this-group-being-targeted/

With less than two years to go before the next federal election, Nationals leader Matt Canavan knows his time in Parliament could be running out, with polling showing his Senate seat representing Queensland may be under threat.

The economist got into politics during the first Rudd government, working as chief of staff to then-Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, before being elected to the Senate himself in 2013.

Joyce is “still a mate” Canavan speaks to regularly today, even after Joyce’s dramatic defection to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, which has been gaining voters from both the Coalition and Labor.

Canavan joined us on the podcast to discuss whether he’d consider working in a coalition with One Nation; how to better manage AI, data centres and social media; and if he’d consider shifting to a lower house seat ahead of the next election.

Why One Nation is ‘not really compatible’ with the Coalition

Canavan said that when he speaks to voters around Australia, “there’s a level of engagement that I’ve never seen” – but that many feel frustrated with politics as usual.

More and more people are coming to events than I have ever seen before and people are listening. Now, yes, many of those people at the moment are probably saying that they would vote for One Nation, if an election will be held today. But they are still listening to us, and to me.

Despite more voters shifting away from the Coalition to One Nation, Canavan said he couldn’t see how the party could be part of a future three-way coalition because “[Hanson] is judge, jury and executioner. If you get off on her bad side, she’ll kick you out tomorrow.”

The very structure of One Nation’s party is not really compatible with the way the Liberal and Nationals parties operate. Look, we are different parties, the Liberal and Nationals, and we have slightly different cultures from time to time […] But at a governance level, we’re very similar in terms of how our members of parliament are selected, how our leaders are selected, how we operate with party rooms and processes. We gel together in that respect.

[…] It’s important to have a proper shadow cabinet process, where you debate things and get everybody’s views […] and then come to a point of agreement and consensus, and go and fight for that. That’s not how One Nation works. And I don’t think in any realistic way it’s going to ever be compatible, because that’s not the way Pauline runs her party. And that’s fine, it’s her party – she can run it the way she likes. But the simple facts are, it’s not how we run things. And so I can’t see there being a coalition among us.

On standing up for AI copyright protections

This week, Canavan accused US technology company OpenAI of blackmail, after reports it may pull back investment if the federal government didn’t water down Australian copyright protections.

There’s no way in hell that our country should erode property rights based on the threat of investment or non-investment. No, sorry, that is not how we work.

[…] When different types of technologies come along, there is sometimes negotiations that occur about how you access and use copyright material. Spotify has done it of course in recent times. The radio industry have these arrangements in place to do it when they play music […] So we can sit down [with AI companies] and be reasonable. But it has to be done with a strong view that we will protect the property rights of Australians first, that’s our job.

And I would say to the artificial intelligence companies: you’re playing with fire here, because if you start saying that, ‘oh, well, these types of property rights are malleable’, well, what about your own? The whole IT industry is built on the value of intellectual property […] I think they should be protected, I’m sure they think they should be protected – but it cuts both ways.

On powering data centres

Canavan said he’s “not comfortable at this stage” with how well data centres are being regulated in Australia, “principally because it’s not clear that we have the energy” to supply them.

That’s the big problem. And to do so, I think we need to have nuclear energy for a start. Probably we also need some coal and gas as well to supplement things while that comes on. Without that, I fear this is going to have an enormous impact.

If it does have a big impact on energy prices, it will lose support pretty quickly. Now, in terms of in the bush, look, it’s a bit early to say. These are very, very new. Like any development, they are attracting concern. There’s concerns about power prices, concerns about water. I’m not, and never have, been anti-development. But any developer has to get local support on board. That’s my test. If you want to get your project going, get the locals on board; they’re my shareholders.

Read more:
Data centres have existed for decades. So why are they so controversial now?

On his future in Parliament

Polling suggests that Canavan’s place as a Queensland s could be at risk, given the sharp drop in Coalition support since the 2025 election. Asked if he’ll consider a move to the lower house, he said “I’ll consider it” once it’s clear if any seats need filling.

Whether I stay in the Senate, or go to the lower house, I think I’d be in the same position either way. And there’s no safe lower house seats, either, around right now.

[…] I’ve said I will not be challenging any sitting Nationals members, or any members of parliament. I desperately want all of my members to run again, because their name ID, their incumbency, their record is our best protection.

But if there is a need for someone to run, we’ve got to win seats in the lower house, I’ll consider that then […] I’m not going to die wondering. I’ll whatever I have to do to change this government. And, you know, whatever I do, wherever I run, you know, this could be my last election. I know that. I’m not going into it with any rose-eyed glasses.

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/politics-with-michelle-grattan-matt-canavan-on-why-one-nation-is-not-really-compatible-as-a-coalition-partner/

Tony Burke was late to the National Press Club to announce the government’s migration policy on Thursday. Six weeks late, to be precise.

After the embarrassment of having to abort his earlier press club appearance, followed by a degree of faffing around by senior ministers over the detail, and unsuccessful negotiations between government and opposition, Burke produced a package that, on his own admission, did not contain all he’d wished.

It attacks some problems. But the government will be wedged between those who think the changes don’t go far enough and critics who believe they’re draconian.

The government will stop the entry of the families of most overseas students, which will make life harder for some and have the effect, presumably, of discouraging others from coming at all. Universities will be concerned.

Working holiday makers wanting to stay two or three years will face the luck of the draw, under a new ballot system. Only 5,000 will get a third year, compared to 31,000 last year. Some farmers and businesses in regional areas looking for labour will be worried.

A proposed “No Further Stay” condition for visitor visas is a blunt instrument, but is aimed at dealing with a large loophole that’s being exploited.

Burke candidly anticipated he’ll come under attack for toughening compliance measures, with greater use of detention as the government tries to deport overstayers. But again, there is a substantial challenge in a system where enforcement has become too loose.

The measures won’t satisfy those who desire a much smaller migration program. They are about achieving the budget target of 225,000 Net Overseas Migration (NOM) by 2027–28, not going lower. Voters wanting a substantially bigger squeeze on the total intake will still be looking to One Nation, or waiting for the Coalition, which is still wrestling with its own alternative.

In terms of numbers, it’s a delicate balance. As Burke told parliament: “If you make cuts too deep, too hard in the immigration system, you trash the Australian economy”.

There will be a good reception for the government’s changes to give priority to skilled workers in vital areas such as health care and construction. This should have been done years ago.

Equally, the crack down on “rogue” migration agents is long overdue.

Burke would have liked to act against those he called “disingenuous protection claims” – people who, coming to the end of their visa hopping, launch a protection claim that might give them “up to nine years working in Australia” while their appeals drag on.

“To give a sense of the gravity of this, if we took the people who apply from countries where more than 85% of the applications fail, that constitutes 80% of our case load. This is an issue I’d like to be able to deal with.”

But that needs legislation and no agreement was able to be reached in two recent meetings between Anthony Albanese and Angus Taylor. With One Nation effectively “owning” the immigration issue on the right these days, the opposition would like to move on from it, but eventually felt it could not afford to give too much ground to Labor.

One wonders, however, if the government should not have just included the measure to deal with bogus claims, to see whether the opposition might give in under parliamentary pressure.

Burke’s belated appearance came days after One Nation did its preemption act, with its own policy launched on Monday – albeit a plan that has been blasted by opponents, stakeholders and many experts.

Inside and outside Labor, Burke’s untidy handling of what is a central issue has had some people scratching their heads.

When he was installed in the home affairs portfolio, replacing Clare O’Neil who’d struggled in the job, Burke was widely seen as both competent and the classic “safe pair of hands”. After all, he’s one of the elite group competing to eventually lead Labor.

Burke’s mistake was getting ahead of his colleagues by lining up the press club before the policy process had been finalised. When the draft went to senior ministers, they had issues. Burke was reluctant to cancel his speech, which made the last minute pull-out look worse.

Reports of a big split between Burke and Treasurer Jim Chalmers over the policy were overblown; indeed, Chalmers tried to facilitate Burke’s attempt to meet his initial timetable. But it is notable that Chalmers’ general stance on immigration is very forward leaning, putting him close to that of South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, who recently warned about “the prospect of mainstream politics entering a political race to the bottom for who can cut migration numbers the most”.

The migration policy changes proposed by the various parties will have big fallouts for stakeholders and the economy. But many discontented voters may just make their judgements on the bottom line numbers.

It doesn’t take the ubiquitous opinion polls to tell us the electorate is in a very bad mood, with angst about immigration just one strand in this.

Within Labor they talk about the mid-term blues. They’ve been in this territory before of course – remember, quite close to the last election, the government’s very future appeared at possible risk. Now it has a huge majority to protect it.

On the other hand, in previous difficult times, One Nation hadn’t become the mini-monster now confronting both conservative and Labor parties.

On Monday the government will release the latest Intergenerational Report, which charts the economic and budgetary challenges for the coming four decades. These are formidable, especially for a country that has fundamental problems, notably a seeming inability to get productivity moving and the pressures of an ageing population.

The challenges of the future 40 years will seem theoretical to many people, given how quickly things change. Forty years ago, the power of social media and AI, obsessing us now, were way over the horizon. What won’t pass people by is another rise in interest rates, at present considered a high prospect when the Reserve Bank meets at the end of this month.

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/grattan-on-friday-burke-delivers-overdue-migration-baby-but-is-it-sturdy-enough-to-withstand-the-critics/

It’s not hard to find a long-spined sea urchin (Centrostephanus rodgersii) on rocky walls and in underwater forests comprised of golden kelp (Ecklonia radiata) and crayweed (Phyllospora comosa) in southeast Australia.

They also live in “urchin barrens”, areas of bare rock and encrusting algae. In media reports, these areas are often described as “lifeless moonscapes”. In this telling, large numbers of urchins eat their way through kelp forests and create new barrens.

This isn’t quite fair on the barrens – or the urchins. Much concern has focused on how fast barrens have expanded their range into Tasmanian waters in recent decades as oceans have warmed up. But in New South Wales, barrens do not appear to be increasing. Barrens are vital habitat. By some measures, they can be richer in species and host different invertebrates than kelp forests.

Urchins, too, may be being judged unfairly. Across their native NSW range, long-spined urchin populations have been stable over long timeframes.

Long-spined urchins have long been suggested as the key cause of kelp forest declines, because disappearing kelp coincides with more urchins. In response, authorities have launched urchin control programs, where divers pull urchins from the sea.

But recent research suggests it’s not that simple. Kelp species like cold water, and the oceans are warming fast. Urchins may well be a symptom, not the key cause.

Of urchins and underwater barrens

Like many urchin species, long-spined urchins are omnivores. They eat kelp as well as small worms and other invertebrates, tiny organic particles and drifting algae.

The question is, how heavily do they depend on kelp? Long-spined urchins graze differently to most other urchins. They don’t actively move towards kelp and cannot climb into the kelp canopy to feed. Unlike other native urchins, they don’t form dense “feeding fronts” typically associated with creating barrens.

Across their native range in southeastern Australia, long-spined urchins prefer shallower waters (down to ~15–20 metres) and their mobility to access kelp is limited compared to other species. That means they eat kelp within well-defined boundaries.

In recent research, we collected 100 long-spined urchins from barrens and kelp forests off the coast of New South Wales. We examined their gut contents and found they had been eating invertebrates, kelp and particulate matter.

We then used a different approach, stable isotope analysis, to estimate the long-term dietary proportion for each food group. We found urchins were using kelp as food, but that invertebrates and particulate organic matter were often equally or more important.

In southern NSW, the recent decline of kelp forests has been attributed to grazing urchins. But our results show urchins in these waters relied far more strongly on particulate matter. Even within dense kelp forests, urchins can rely more on food other than kelp.

Are urchin predators in short supply?

So why are long-spined urchins so common?

One possibility is a lack of large predators. It is often suggested overfishing of eastern rock lobsters (Sagmariasus verreauxi), eastern blue groper (Achoerodus viridis) and pink snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) has removed natural controls on urchin numbers.

But do these predators often eat long-spined urchins? To test this theory, we analysed the gut contents of gropers and snapper and eastern rock lobsters and ran wild and caged feeding trials with lobsters. We found urchins were being eaten by these species, but only rarely. Predator size didn’t appear to matter.

When we used isotope analysis on these predators, we found little direct evidence the two fish species relied on long-spined urchins. Snapper appeared more likely to be long-spined urchin predators than blue groper, while rock lobsters showed far less potential reliance on them.

Are our interventions helping?

It’s natural to be concerned about disappearing kelp forests. Culling urchins and protecting their predators have been proposed as ways to help kelp.

The problem is, culling costs money, takes continual effort, is very hard to scale and has limited long-term effectiveness. Recent research found when long-spined urchins were removed across large areas, those remaining reproduced faster.

What about protecting urchin predators? Even when large predators are present, long-spined urchins appear to be at the bottom of the menu.

In long-protected areas such as Jervis Bay Marine Park, large urchin predators are abundant, but kelp-free urchin barrens persist. This suggests the role of predators has been overstated.

Urchins may not be the major cause of kelp forest loss. But once kelp is gone, their grazing of young kelp does stop it regrowing, maintaining the barrens.

So what else might be killing kelp forests?

Kelp likes cold, salty water. But Australia’s coastal waters are warming fast, while large volumes of fresh water from intense floods kill swathes of kelp. Climate change is worsening each of these threats.

The same climate-boosted threats also affect urchins. Pulses of fresh water and storms rapidly reduce urchin numbers across a large area.

Long-spined urchins do eat kelp and predators do eat urchins. But our body of research shows these relationships are more complex than often made out.

We can’t just say urchins are the problem and that the solution is to keep pulling them from the sea.

Protecting gropers, snapper and lobsters may have little effect on urchin control. But it’s worth doing because they’re ecologically valuable in their own right.

Spotting more long-spined urchins after kelp disappears may be a symptom of broader collapse, rather than the main cause. Long-term solutions will require confronting the elephant in the room – the rapid warming of our oceans due to climate change.

Jeremy Day has received funding support from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales and the Ecological Society of Australia.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/why-the-story-of-urchin-barrens-and-kelp-forests-is-more-complex-than-we-thought/

The Albanese government will stop the entry of students’ family members, attack “visa hopping”, and drastically cut the numbers of those on long-term working holidays under migration policy changes announced by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke.

The government has redone the points test for skilled workers to give priority to key sectors, including health care, construction, education, law enforcement, defence, resources, agriculture, aquaculture and fishing.

The long-awaited overhaul of the migration system comes as figures released on Thursday showed Net Overseas Migration (NOM) for the year to March coming down to 292,100, which is better than the budget forecast of 295,000 for 2025-26.

The government is committed to bringing the NOM to 225,000 by 2027-28. The changes are seeking to meet this target, not aiming at a lower one.

Burke, delivering a speech covering “who arrives, who stays, who leaves” at the National Press Club, said he wanted to clamp down on spurious protection claims but this would require legislation. However, attempts to get opposition support for legislation had failed. He hoped the opposition would come back to the table.

In general, international students will no longer be allowed to bring family members with them, although there will be some exceptions, including for people from Pacific and ASEAN countries and for those on PhD courses.

The Working Holiday Maker Program will have a ballot system for years two and three. Year two will have a limit of 45,000 (down from last year’s 57,000); for year three, it will be 5,000 (down from 31,000).

There will be a “no further stay” condition applied to visitor visas to prevent people hopping to bridging visas.

Students will not be able to “hop down” to lower-level courses to prolong their stays.

There will be a crackdown on “rogue” migration agents.

A tougher approach will be taken to overstayers, with more use of detention to ensure there are consequences. There will be 100 more compliance officers and 250 extra beds to beef up the effort to remove overstayers.

Burke said this was only going back to the approach in place before 2015. He stressed this was not like the approach taken in some other countries, leaving unspecified the obvious example of the United States. But he anticipated he would come under fire for the measure.

Burke summed up his message:

If you want to come on a temporary basis to Australia, apply for a temporary visa. If you want to come to Australia permanently, apply for a permanent visa. And if you no longer have a valid visa, you should leave Australia.

Challenged by the opposition in parliament later about not going further to cut numbers, Burke said: “If you make cuts too deep, too hard in the immigration system, you trash the Australian economy”.

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/migration-changes-to-hit-students-families-and-working-holiday-makers/

Right-wing astroturfers were given a platform at the Bondi Royal Commission, their history concealed and their testimony uncontested. Wendy Bacon reveals what the Commissioners ignored for Michael West Media.

INVESTIGATION: By Wendy Bacon

The last hearing block of Australia’s Bondi Royal Commission focused on social cohesion, defined as the “national consensus in support of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law”.

Counsel assisting Zelie Heger SC explained that the block would present “measures currently contributing to strengthening social cohesion” and “advancing the interests of all Australians” by promoting “respectful discussion of difficult issues”.

Among those chosen by Counsel Assisting were Roz Mendelle and Simonne Whine, co-directors of the Australian Cohesion Forum (ACF).

The Australian Cohesion Forum
ACF is a national not-for-profit connecting communities across Australia. It claims to be apolitical,

“… we don’t advocate for parties, candidates, or geopolitical positions, and we don’t promote stances on international conflicts. However, we recognise that politics is often central to lived experience. Our focus is on how global events affect Australians here, and our programs create structured, safe spaces to discuss difficult topics with openness, respect, and healthy boundaries.”

• READ MORE: Dark Money: Labor and Liberal join forces in attacks on Teals and Greens
• Other Bondi Royal Commission reports

In explaining how ACF came into being, Mendelle and Whine told the commission that in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, they had separately organised to support the Jewish community.

Marketing manager and Israeli citizen Roz Mendelle explained how she moved to Brisbane with her Australian wife Hava, who had “made Aliyah” to Israel.

After October 7, Mendelle felt a

“‘wall of hate’ from protests against Israel.”

She started organising pro-Israel events which were supported by Iranians and Hindus who supported Israel. She realised “this is the trick … these are the people that I need to expand relationships with”.

Meanwhile, Whine had founded a grassroots network in Melbourne called J-United to support the Jewish community.

Whine told the commission that she kept hearing about Mendelle’s work, telling the commission, “We want to fill a gap. And so we came up with the Australian Cohesion Forum.”

The ACF organises “impact nets”, “coLabs” and virtual storytelling through which they collect data from attendees to analyse how they can partner together in a “fully collaborative, agile” way.

“As long as ‘none of us endorses violence against another community, and we don’t wish the elimination of another community, we can work together, we can create beautiful things together,’” Mendelle told the commission.

None of the lawyers present or the commissioner had any questions, and so Mendelle and Whine were excused.

Astroturfing campaigns
There is an easily identifiable gap in Mendelle and Whine’s evidence about how they came to work together, which in turn raises questions about how they were selected as witnesses who are said to be “advancing the interests of all Australians” by promoting “respectful discussion of difficult issues”.

Mendelle and Whine collaborated in well-funded political astroturfing campaigns in 2024 and 2025 aimed at defeating Greens and Teals. (Astroturfing is the practice of making a top-down political campaign look like a spontaneous grassroots movement.)

Deep Cut News, The Guardian and Australian Jewish News also reported on these campaigns.

In March  2025, Whine and Mendelle appeared in a webinar staged by the far-right Australian Jewish Association, then led by David Adler, who was a founder of Advance Australia. Advance campaigned strongly against the 2023 Voice Referendum in terms that many saw as racist.

On this occasion, Mendelle and Whine gave a different version of how they came to work together.

Earlier still, in 2024 Mendelle and her wife Hava began the third party campaigning organisation the Queensland Jewish Collective (QJC). Their strategy was to defeat the Greens by recommending voters put them last on the ballot papers.

Asked how she developed her messaging, Mendelle explained that she chose

“what was screaming in her head”,

which was that the Greens support terror groups and are anti-semitic.”

It was that simple. Australia has no truth in political advertising laws, so it didn’t matter that the Greens completely rejected the allegations.

QJC claimed credit for defeating Queensland Greens MP Amy McMahon in October 2024. They then set their sights on the Federal election and established a new third-party organisation called Minority Impact Coalition (MIC) to campaign in Queensland, NSW and Victoria. MIC describes itself as “minority and refugee lead grassroots advocacy“.

MIC and ACF operate from the same address in Apsley, Queensland. Roz Mendelle was an MIC director until January 2026.

J-United director Sharon Kuper later told the pro-Israel L’Chaim radio programme that QJC were happy for J-United to replicate their messaging campaign that the Greens were “misinformed, dishonest, fostering hatred and harming social cohesion” and “disregard for human life”.

Enter Advance Australia
When J-United needed funds to emulate the QJC campaign in the 2025 Victorian Prahran byelection, they reached out to Advance Australia. Kuper told the L’Chaim radio programme that the Advance organisers said, “We’re happy to support you. What do you need? How about if we just support your whole campaign?”

Kuper described this as a “huge boost that they paid for our entire campaign… it took away the security concerns we had, with them endorsing and authorising our campaign”.

Advance went on to work with MIC and J-United on the Federal election under the brand name Put the Greens Last.

In the AJA webinar, Whine confirmed Kuper’s account of Advance providing assistance to J-United, describing it as a “fantastic, efficient, strategic and resource” which was “totally transparent. Very helpful…I think we’ve now built a really good relationship”.

The QJC’s Queensland campaign cost $30,000. Mendelle realised that they needed more funds for the Minority Impact Coalition’s Federal campaign from “people with slightly bigger means”. MIC sought help from Advance, who she found to be “absolutely honest, transparent, direct, and easy to deal with”.

ZIonist astroturfing organisations were not the only Zionists to embrace Advance. Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Jillian Segal’s husband John Roth donated $50,000 to Advance through a family foundation.

Any hint of this intense political campaigning was missing in Mendelle and Whine’s Royal Commission version of how they came to join forces in ACF.

Women’s International Zionist Organisation
In June, ACF featured in a plenary at the Women’s International Zionist Organisation (WIZO) Australia conference on the Gold Coast. WIZO works in partnership with the Israeli government to strengthen the resilience of Israeli society and raises funds for Israel.

The panel discussion “Cohesion in Action: Strength and Friendship featured Jewish, Iranian, Druze and Torres Strait Islander Australians”, led by Roz Mendelle, with the five speakers each expressed support for Israel.

Minority Impact Coalition
In introducing the Social Cohesion hearings at the RC, Senior Counsel Assisting Richard Lancaster SC explained that staff had already reviewed all submissions and that these informed the choice of witnesses. We can assume then that counsel were aware of MIC’s 122-page submission.

The key contact for the MIC submission is Roz’s wife, Hava Mendelle, and the submission team includes Roz Mendelle, fellow ACF director Iranian Azin Naghibi, messianic Christian Zionist preacher and lawyer Dr Warren Keir and extreme pro-Israel supporter Joshu Turier.

MIC’s recommendations to the Royal Commission are hard-line, in some cases going beyond Special Envoy Jillian Segal’s recommendations.

Far from showing respect for other Australians, MIC wants Australians who do not support Israel to be penalised and shut down.

According to MIC, accusing Israel of genocide is a “blood libel” sustained through “fabricated casualty figures and weaponised by elected officials, protest organisers and venue operators” to justify the exclusion of Jewish Australians.

Anti-Zionism is antisemitism

According to MIC, those who amplify anti-Zionist narratives should face enforceable consequences including loss of funding. Institutional silence in the face of documented antisemitic conduct should be considered a failure of duty of care.

Elected officials who promote statements that do not meet the IHRA definition or who operate official Parliamentary events featuring such content are in breach of their duties and should be accountable.

The ABC and the Federal Court should both be investigated for antisemitism for accepting the existence of a “lobby” that pushes pro-Israeli perspectives.

Duties of Counsel Assisting
Counsel assisting Royal Commissions play a key role in developing investigation strategies and ensuring evidence is presented impartially and in a way that does not obscure the truth.

Mendelle and Whine were introduced by Counsel Assisting Tamara Phillips whose manner throughout the Royal Commission has been empathetic.

In December 2023, Phillips was one of more than 450 lawyers who signed a letter which defended Israel and its military tactics against criticism by 1400 lawyers who had signed a letter calling for a ceasefire.

Mark Liebler of law firm Arnold Block Liebler, which represents Federal and State Zionist organisations at the Royal Commission, was a top signatory to the pro-Israeli letter.

All the material in this article is on the public record. Michael West Media alerted the Royal Commission to published material about their astroturfing activities shortly before Mendelle and Whine gave evidence.

Has the evidence changed?
MWM has been asking for the exhibit of Roz Mendelle for three weeks, and has been told that there are delays “to ensure accuracy is maintained, and legal sensitivities are addressed.” We have responded and asked

how an exhibit once tendered could be changed?

Commission lawyers are now summarising evidence and developing final arguments. The commissioner alone will then make findings. Meanwhile, the commission staff continues to hold meetings with selected individuals where no details are published.

In the name of “procedural fairness”, those who were called as witnesses will be given a chance to respond to final submissions of Counsel Assisting.

Not so the groups and unnamed but identifiable individuals in the pro-Palestinian movement whom witnesses have accused of antisemitism, including those who wanted to give evidence but were not invited.

For them, there is no right of reply.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/australias-social-cohesion-far-right-astroturfers-and-the-bondi-royal-commission/

Usually they wouldn’t be seen dead together. But Pauline Hanson, Fatima Payman and Dai Le joined forces on Thursday to condemn Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for discriminating against them in staffing allocations.

The prime minister decides how many personal staff parliamentarians receive, and he has been arbitrary in his decisions.

Senator Payman, an independent who defected from the Labor Party last term to the crossbench over the issue of Palestine, has complained constantly about being discriminated against. Leaving aside electorate staff, she has no personal staff allocated to her compared, for example, with the two each that fellow independents David Pocock and Lidia Thorpe (who defected from the Greens) have.

One Nation doubled its Senate representation from two to four at the 2025 election but received no extra staff.

After its win in the Farrer byelection One Nation has six in the parliament, but only five staff in total.

Le won the Labor seat of Fowler in 2022 as an indeopendent. She has an allocation of one staffer.

Payman made a highly personal attack on Albanese at their joint news conference.

Australia has heard the prime minister’s recent comments on melons, on Grace Tame, and Kylie Minogue.

He brags about his female majority caucus and the government’s track record on women’s rights. But are those rights only granted to women who agree with him?

I know the prime minister wants to punish me, but he should not be allowed to play favouritism.

There should be an independent process that guides resourcing when it comes to parliament, not the whim of a petty man.

Hanson said that for a year “I have been asking, requesting, begging – actually, I have been begging the prime minister to listen to what is happening in my office and to allow me the staff to do my job”.

“I’m calling on the prime minister again: please give us the resources that we need to do the job for the Australian people. You’re hurting the Australian people.

“You said you’d be open and honest, accountable and transparent. You’ve been everything but.

“And therefore, the people are really seeing through this prime minister, who is selfish […] he doesn’t give a damn about the people, and he certainly doesn’t respect the other elected members of parliament in this place in giving us the resources that we need to do our jobs.”

Le told their joint news conference there were “no published criteria, no explanation, no appeal”, when it came to staffing.

“When support is decided that way, it won’t be fair, and it won’t be seen to be fair. Staffing is not just about a desk in an office. An additional personal staff member strengthens the whole electorate office.

“They can support electorate offices by helping coordinate complex matters, prepare briefings and correspondence, engage with government agencies and stakeholders, and ensure broader issues affecting our community are properly raised in Canberra.”

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/unlikely-political-bedfellows-team-up-against-albanese-over-staff/

We’ve just received the results of the latest PISA test – the international assessment of 15-year-olds’ science, maths and reading skills.

In Australia, the reporting followed a script that will be familiar to anyone who keeps an eye on what happens in schools and academic results.

Indigenous students were compared to non-Indigenous students and found to be 72 points behind non-Indigenous students in science, 76 behind in reading and 74 points behind in maths. Average scores for PISA are typically around 500 points.

Those numbers are accurate – but they tell only part of the story.

For example, in PISA, average Indigenous science scores rose 16 points since 2022, while non-Indigenous scores did not move. Indigenous scores in reading and maths also held steady, while non-Indigenous scores dipped.

What NAPLAN research tells us

The PISA “gap” mirrors reporting of NAPLAN scores, the literacy and numeracy testing of Australian students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9.

These also highlight how Indigenous students lag behind their non-Indigenous peers. And make no room for talking about Indigenous successes.

There are other ways of looking at the scores. A 2024 study led by Peter Anderson, examined a decade of NAPLAN data and found comparing Indigenous students to non-Indigenous students’ averages obscured what is actually working.

When Indigenous students were matched with their Indigenous peers who shared similar starting points, it showed some schools and systems were achieving real, sustained gains. These gains did not show up in conventional comparisons.

Who are these tests designed for?

PISA is designed by the OECD to measure how well 15-year-olds apply what they know to real-life challenges.

This means Indigenous students are not just being measured against their non-Indigenous peers in Australia but against the OECD’s version of “real life”.

Australian data on student and school characteristics shows 80% of the Indigenous students who sat the most recent PISA test come from the lowest two socioeconomic quarters. Half come from the lowest quarter alone.

This tells us Indigenous students are not starting from the same position as their non-Indigenous peers. There are huge differences in access and resourcing – rather than aptitude or ability.

When the results get reported as a straight issue of “performance” this over simplifies a much more complex situation. And is precisely how deficit framing works.

When the benchmark is the non-Indigenous student, the shortfall is located in the Indigenous student – rather than the education system. Or the broader society.

In 2022, Anderson and colleagues’ synthesis of 51 studies on Australian schools found a pervasive lack of teacher readiness, curriculum readiness and school culture readiness to teach Indigenous students.

19 years of an unused benchmark

In September 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Australia initially voted against it, then endorsed it in April 2009. Three of its articles speak directly to education.

• Article 14 sets out the right of Indigenous peoples to establish and control their own educational systems, teach in their own languages and in ways appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning, and access every level of state education without discrimination.

• Article 15 sets out the right to have the dignity and diversity of Indigenous cultures reflected in education and in public information.

• Article 21 sets out the right to improvement of economic and social conditions, with education named explicitly among them.

These rights describe what an education system must do, not how far a student falls short. But as studies have found, Australia has not adequately incorporated these rights into our education system.

Using rights – not a ‘gap’ – as a benchmark

This Indigenous rights-based framework can form the basis of a much more suitable and equitable way of looking at education and test results. For example:

• are Indigenous students able to learn in their own languages, and are those languages resourced as languages of instruction rather than as cultural supplements?

• is Indigenous knowledge present in the curriculum – as a distinct and equally valid form of knowledge? (Not simply as “enrichment” that can be removed without consequence)

• do Indigenous communities have a genuine say, grounded in free, prior and informed consent, in how the schools serving their children are governed and run?

• are outcomes tracked within cohorts over time, so that improvement is visible when it happens and the system is accountable for it?

Under this framework, the 16-point rise in Indigenous science scores since 2022 reads as something to understand, investigate, and build on, rather than as a footnote to a gap that still exists.

Non-Indigenous students’ PISA results should prompt questions for the education system. They are not a benchmark for everyone else to be measured against.

The authors wish to thank Dr Thu Pham from the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute for her input into this article.

Peter Anderson has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Centre for Student Equity First Nations Fellowship

Angela Baeza Pena has received funding from the Australian government through the Research Training Program and the Australian Research Council

Bronwyn Fredericks has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, the National Indigenous Australian Agency, the Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success, and the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education.

Levon Ellen Blue previously received funding from the Australian Research Council and Department of Education.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/what-major-tests-like-pisa-and-naplan-get-wrong-about-indigenous-students/

Anyone who has flown with or near children can picture it: the crying kid, the frazzled parent and the cranky passengers.

Travelling with children can be tough, and the difficulties can escalate when you cross a timezone or two.

Things don’t necessarily improve when you touch down, either. After long-haul travel, jet lag can impact our health for days afterwards.

Most adults have experienced jet lag, but what about when kids are involved?

What exactly is jet lag?

Jet lag refers to the temporary misalignment of a person’s internal body clock (or circadian rhythm) with the local time where they are. In other words, the body is still operating according to the time zone it has just come from, rather than the new time zone.

As the name suggests, jet lag is generally caused by air travel – when you cross multiple time zones very quickly before the body can adapt.

It can make you feel fatigued and sluggish during the day and make it hard to sleep at night in your new location.

Is it worse flying in a certain direction?

Yes, jet lag is worse when you travel east.

When travelling east, you are essentially “losing” time. This means when you try to go to bed at your destination, your body clock still thinks it is much earlier in the day.

You might find yourself lying awake at night because your body isn’t ready for sleep yet. Or you might wake up at a time that feels like the middle of the night.

When travelling west, your body clock is essentially “behind” the local time. This means you may start to feel sleepy earlier than usual because your body thinks it is later than it really is.

Fortunately for people travelling west, it’s generally easier to stay awake later than it is to fall asleep earlier. This means you can often push through some afternoon or early evening sleepiness until a more reasonable bedtime.

How does jet lag affect kids?

Kids tend to experience similar symptoms to adults, such as:

• finding it hard to get to sleep or stay asleep
• being cranky
• not wanting to eat at mealtime
• nausea
• generally feeling fatigued.

Surprisingly, not a lot of research has been done comparing the effects of jet lag in kids with jet lag in adults.

What we do know suggests kids might actually be affected a little less than adults. This might be because children produce more melatonin, which could help them adjust to new time zones a little quicker. Melatonin is the “sleepiness hormone” that our body naturally produces.

Evidence also suggests that as we age, we become less tolerant of jet lag. However, most of this evidence has looked at comparisons of young adults and older adults, so may not necessarily reflect the differences between adults and children.

Tips to reduce jet lag before you fly

The good news is, you can start adjusting your or your child’s body clock before you leave home.

This generally requires precise control of light exposure and possibly adjusting sleep times in the days before departure.

Every hour you shift before boarding is one less hour to catch up at the other end – though this means you are starting the jet lag early, at home.

Shifting the body clock before travel is demanding for anyone but with children you are also managing someone else’s schedule, energy and patience – someone who might not understand why they need to sleep an hour earlier than usual.

For many families, this isn’t realistic. However, from the moment you disembark, there’s plenty you can do.

Tips once you land

Your most powerful jet lag tool is free: daylight.

As a general rule of thumb, being exposed to morning light shifts your body clock earlier. Light in the late afternoon or evening shifts your body clock later.

Getting this timing right at your destination is the single most effective thing you can do to combat jet lag for you and your child.

Habitual time cues (everyday things that signal the time to your body, such as meal times or bedtime routines) can also help with the shift to a new time zone.

Try to move mealtimes to local schedules as quickly as possible.

Where you can, keep bedtime routines consistent. A familiar sequence of bath, story and lights out carries more weight than most parents realise. For young children, routine is one of the strongest signals that sleep is coming, regardless of what the clock says.

What about tech – or medication?

Most jet lag apps rely on the same principles: that light, melatonin and exercise can shift the body clock, and that timing matters.

If you are using an app or related technology, the amount of personalisation it includes is likely to determine how useful it is. At a minimum, apps should include questions about your sleep history, usual sleep schedule, chronotype (whether you are a morning or evening person) and travel itinerary.

Some people also use melatonin supplements for themselves, or their children, while travelling.

But unless you are working with a healthcare provider like a paediatrician, it’s generally not recommended to use these supplements. Taking the wrong dose, or taking melatonin at the wrong time, can actually make jet lag worse – for both adults and kids.

Madeline Sprajcer receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Dean J. Miller has consulted for various companies, athletes, and government bodies concerning jet lag adaption protocols.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/travelling-with-kids-how-can-you-minimise-jet-lag-with-your-little-ones/

Australia’s farm sector currently faces a double whammy from weather and non-weather related factors: a confirmed El Niño effect and surging inflationary pressures.

The Bureau of Meteorology says a strong El Niño is underway in late spring and into summer in Australia. This week it said:

Models indicate the current event is likely to become the strongest El Niño event on record, with reliable records dating back to 1950.

The research division of the Department of Agriculture, known as ABARES, says the current El Niño could lead to lower spring rainfall in parts of Australia, but the impacts are uncertain.

These events have coincided with non-weather factors such as rising fuel and fertiliser prices caused by conflict in the Middle East, and ongoing inflationary pressure in the economy.

So, how will these various pressures affect prices of food in coming months?

Fewer leafy greens?

Fruits and vegetables that are part of the regular diet of many households are likely to be affected, but to varying degrees. Consumers could see lower availability and higher prices for some vegetables, such as leafy greens, peas, broccoli and cauliflower later in the year.

On the other hand, due to drier growing conditions, greater supply of citrus, apples and stone fruits is likely. Consumers may find greater availability of peaches, nectarines and plums in markets.

The appearance of vegetables and fruits can be affected by extreme heat and sun exposure, potentially reducing their visual appeal. But product quality is not affected, a point the industry has been keen to promote with sales of “imperfect” fruit and vegetables.

In eastern and southern parts of Australia, winter and spring rainfall is likely to be lower due to El Niño, leading to a fall in the production of pasture.

For cattle and sheep producers, lower pasture availability can force them to use feed supplements or to reduce stock numbers. If many producers attempt to sell livestock at the same time, livestock prices can come under pressure. A dry spring therefore can lead to repercussions beyond the season itself.

ABARES forecasts for winter crop production (mainly wheat, barley and canola) in 2026–27 provide a mixed picture. Output is forecast to fall by between 16% and 44% in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia due to below average rainfall.

On the other hand, winter crop output in Victoria and South Australia is forecast to rise, reflecting excellent growing conditions.

Consumers are likely to face rising food prices

It’s not easy to predict by how much the prices of specific food items will increase. Many supply and demand side factors are at play.

Some business forecasts indicate that wheat, sugar and beef prices will be relatively higher for the rest of 2026, and prices are expected to remain above their longer-term averages. The higher prices are likely to flow through to consumers.

Higher prices for fertiliser and diesel are ramping up pressure on farm input costs, with diesel prices above A$2.60 a litre. The impact of fuel price hikes also tend to move beyond the farm gate, increasing the cost of transport, freight and logistics along the supply chain.

Overall, these price hikes will result in higher costs for farmers, and in turn for consumers through higher food prices.

Rainfall has been declining for decades

El Niño effects have coincided with the occurrence of severe droughts over the past several decades (for example, in 1994, 2002, 2006 and 2015) in Australia. The entire farm sector was affected, through lower availability of pasture, reduced crop yields and reduced profits.

Yet El Niño is not the only phenomenon impacting Australian farming conditions. The CSIRO has pointed to a decline in rainfall in southern Australia since 1970 in the main growing season from April to October, citing both natural variability and climate change.

Inflationary pressure to continue

Inflation data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed food and non-alcoholic beverage prices were the second-largest contributor to inflation in the year to July, rising 3.2%. Only housing costs rose by more.

Financial market economists have said rising food prices could be an “unwelcome shock” that prevents an improvement in inflation.

With inflation top of the list of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s concerns, higher food prices look set to keep inflation above the bank’s 2–3% target for some time.

Don Gunasekera is a former chief economist at the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/will-el-nino-send-food-prices-soaring-this-summer/

Imagine you’re scrolling through TikTok and come across an image of a lotus seed pod or sponge.

You might not think much about it, but some people instantly feel sick. Their skin crawls, they feel nauseous, disgusted or very uncomfortable, and quickly swipe away.

The object is harmless. So why does it trigger such a strong reaction?

This reaction is known as trypophobia, an aversion to clusters of holes or circular patterns. About one in six people have at least some degree of discomfort when seeing these patterns.

What is trypophobia?

Despite the “phobia” in its name, trypophobia is not simply a “fear of holes”. It is also not recognised as a standalone mental health disorder. Unlike many phobias, disgust (rather than fear) is often the more dominant emotion.

Common triggers are lotus seed pods and honeycomb, or even everyday objects such as sponges, crumpets, bubbles, aerated chocolate or strawberries.

For most people with trypophobia these reactions are mild and can include disgust, nausea, skin crawling sensation, fear and anxiety.

But for a small group, symptoms can become so distressing they lead to people avoiding particular images, objects, or situations. This is a level of avoidance usually seen in specific phobias, such as arachnophobia, a fear of spiders.

In my own research, some participants avoided strawberries, cooking or baking, clothing, and even showers because of trypophobia-related triggers. These examples show trypophobia can sometimes significantly affect a person’s life.

Read more:
Tokophobia is an extreme fear of childbirth. Here’s how to recognise and treat it

Why is trypophobia having a moment?

The short answer is social media. Media stories, TikTok videos and online communities helped make trypophobia mainstream.

Shared images are often digitally altered to maximise discomfort and provoke strong reactions.

Research also suggests social media might influence how people experience trypophobia. For instance, in one 2024 study, almost two-thirds of people heard about it through social media. Those who had previously heard of trypophobia reported stronger reactions than those who had not.

But that doesn’t mean social media created trypophobia. Around one-quarter of people with trypophobia in the same study had never heard of it. Social media might increase awareness, but it cannot explain why some people react so strongly in the first place.

Why do some people react this way?

Scientists still debate why trypophobia exists, with two leading explanations emerging.

The first is the threat-detection theory. Some researchers argue trypophobic images resemble patterns found on poisonous or dangerous animals, such as snakes. According to this theory, humans might have evolved to react negatively to these visual cues because they can signal danger.

The second theory focuses on avoiding disease, with support from increasing evidence. Clusters of holes can look like skin lesions, rashes, parasites or signs of infection. Although lotus seed pods or honeycomb are completely harmless, the visual resemblance might activate psychological systems that evolved to help us avoid contamination and disease.

Both theories suggest trypophobic patterns might resemble things that historically posed a threat to human health or survival. In other words, the holes themselves might not be the problem. Instead, the brain might interpret these patterns as signs of a biological threat.

What people react to is not the object itself, but what the brain subconsciously thinks the pattern might represent. This might explain why harmless objects can trigger reactions that seem far stronger than the situation warrants.

Read more:
Curious Kids: where do phobias come from?

Does it need treatment?

Fortunately, most people only have mild symptoms and do not need treatment. Understanding that trypophobia is a recognised and common phenomenon can often be reassuring.

However, if symptoms cause significant distress or begin to interfere with daily life, it might be worth seeking professional support.

Even though trypophobia is often associated with disgust, many people also experience fear and anxiety. So treatments used for specific phobias, particularly exposure-based approaches, might be helpful.

This might involve gradually and safely confronting feared or uncomfortable images, situations or sensations while reducing avoidance. Over time, people learn they can tolerate their distress and that the anticipated harm does not occur.

Until recently, no treatment had been specifically tested for trypophobia. However, a recently published study I co-authored found a single intensive treatment session targeting fear and disgust reduced symptoms and helped participants engage more fully in daily activities.

The bottom line

Trypophobia is more than an internet meme. It is a genuine psychological experience that can range from mild discomfort to significant distress.

Growing evidence suggests these patterns might activate ancient psychological systems designed to detect danger, contamination and disease. The brain could be responding as if it has detected a threat, even when there is no threat.

For most people, reactions are brief. But if not, support is available. Ask your GP for a referral to a psychologist.

Read more:
Need to see a psychologist? How to find one that’s right for you

Simone Hain 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/this-sponge-has-holes-some-find-that-truly-disgusting/

The ground is shifting beneath the feet of Australian authors and other creatives. A leaked proposal seen by the ABC suggests the government might grant artificial intelligence (AI) companies access to the copyrighted works of Australians under an opt-out system.

There are no firm plans as yet, but it does appear the government wants to incentivise big AI companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic to bring their business to Australia. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles stated:

The opportunity for Australia economically is enormous in collaborating with frontier companies.

It seems the government also wants to see big AI companies investing in data centre development in Australia.

What’s in play is a choice between the security offered by having local data centres versus the long-term interests of Australian writers and other creatives.

While details of the plan are not publicly available, the fact an opt-out system is being looked at suggests a backtracking from the Albanese government’s promise there would be no text and data mining exception to copyright for AI companies.

Under such an exception, Australian copyright holders would be compensated for the use of their works in AI training. However, Minister for Industry and Innovation Tim Ayres has denied a reduction in copyright protection.

The perils of opt-out

An opt-out system doesn’t gel with Australia’s current copyright laws. Under the Copyright Act, the owner of the copyright in a piece of writing or photo has the right to exploit those rights as they choose.

Forcing copyright owners to opt out of a given system – such as their works being included in training materials for AI models – impedes their rights, because it forces them to take action to protect those rights. Our copyright law dictates the burden should run the other way: it should be the AI companies asking for permission.

The problem with an opt-out system is that by the time you get around to actually opting out, your materials have likely been inside the neural network for a while. Once materials are in the model, the AI system can’t “unlearn” them.

This is where the heart of this dispute lies.

The problem is not just the taking of individual copyright-protected works. It’s the ever-increasing ability of AI systems to produce quality materials as a result of training on copyright-protected works. The better the data, the better the outputs.

This obviously has implications for Australian writers and creators. There are already studies that suggest readers prefer AI-produced works over those of human writers. Widening the range of materials that can permissibly be used for training likely further hastens the evolution of AI.

It also has implications for less obviously affected parties, such as academics and other educators. Another recent study suggested that law professors preferred AI answers over those written by their human colleagues.

The real problem is replacement

So should creatives be paid for their works used in training under a royalty scheme? That might not be enough because the prospect of being replaced or displaced by AI is the real problem.

AI has already made its way into creative industries and other areas of intellectual endeavour.

Visual artists, graphic designers and illustrators have been reporting how generative AI has encroached on their work, resulting in lower wages and even complete replacement.

A short film with AI-generated actor Tilly Norwood was released last year. And the popular music streaming service Spotify has recently been making an effort to remove millions of “AI slop” tracks from its platform.

In other industries where AI has taken over some of the work, such as the translator industry, there’s been a decline in job satisfaction for human workers. In effect, they’ve been displaced from primary translation work into secondary work, such as checking the accuracy of AI translations.

In law, another language-based discipline, AI is threatening to impact graduate employability. And graduate lawyers are being shifted onto verification tasks to ensure AI-generated content is accurate. This is a downgrading of their work tasks.

A recent government report has noted those occupations at risk of AI replacement experienced slower employment growth than those that were not at risk. Notably, the report listed advertising and marketing professionals as being among those most exposed to AI replacement.

All of the anxieties that exist in other industries are keenly felt by Australian authors and creatives. None of our worst fears has come to pass just yet, but giving AI industries a free pass on Australian copyright is the first step to a future in which there are some winners and some real losers.

That must not happen without a longer and more open consultation process.

Dilan Thampapillai 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/17/an-opt-out-system-for-ai-companies-to-access-creative-works-doesnt-gel-with-australias-copyright-laws-heres-why/