Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guy C. Charlton, Associate Professor, University of New England

With a general election looming, the largest shake-up of New Zealand’s local government system in three decades sits on the table.

New Zealanders are being invited to have their say on the draft policy proposal, Simplifying Local Government, which would fundamentally reshape how councils operate.

The government’s case for reform is that the status quo is inefficient, confusing to voters and “tangled in duplication, disagreements and decisions that don’t make sense”.

It argues these problems will only intensify as councils take on new responsibilities, from resource management reform to water services and climate adaptation. Its proposed solution: removing an entire tier of elected local government.

While reform may well be overdue, the proposal raises crucial questions about democratic representation, accountability and how regional decisions should be made.

These issues sit at the heart of the consultation – and they matter as much as the promise of efficiency or lower costs.

How the proposed changes would work

The proposal would abolish regional councils and replace them with combined territorial boards made up of locally elected mayors. Voters would elect only one set of local representatives, rather than both territorial and regional councillors.

The new boards would take on the legal responsibilities of existing regional councils, while much of the regional bureaucracy would remain. Mayors on the boards would not have equal voting power; instead, votes would be weighted by population, with adjustments set by the Local Government Commission.

The proposal also allows – though not as a preferred option – for a Crown Commissioner to be appointed to a territorial boards. Depending on the circumstances, that commissioner could have no vote, a veto, or more than half of the weighted votes, to ensure national interests are taken into account.

The boards’ primary task would be to prepare a regional reorganisation plan within two years of establishment.

These plans would aim to encourage cooperation between councils to reduce costs, improve efficiency and deliver services better aligned with regional needs, while safeguarding local voices. They would also examine whether combined councils or alternative regional entities could deliver services more effectively.

Importantly, the plans would consider how local government works with post-settlement governance entities in relation to Treaty of Waitangi settlements.

They would be guided by a central government review of council functions, assessing whether some responsibilities should be reallocated to other agencies, delivered through different models, or removed where national consistency is required.

Once completed, each plan would be assessed against national priorities, financial viability, service quality, governance and treaty obligations. The outcome could range from retaining the territorial board to modifying or dissolving it, depending on the region.

Where the plan falls short

There is little question that New Zealand’s local government system is no longer serving the needs of communities.

The sector is awash in paperwork, rates have increased, services reduced and it seems unable to deal with a multitude of problems that surfaced during the pandemic.

To this extent, the draft proposal, with its focus on shared efficiencies, reducing the number of local institutions and attempting to reinvigorate local democracy, is welcome. But it comes with significant shortcomings.

First, it does not require a prior assessment of national legislation and policy that shapes – and often constrains – local government functions. Many of the costs and inefficiencies councils face stem from nationally imposed mandates.

Reforming governance structures without examining these obligations risks entrenching, or even worsening, existing problems.

Moreover, the proposal does not consider the Local Government Act 2002, which imposes significant procedural and substantive obligations on councils that could be directly affected by legislative reform and any resulting reorganisation plan.

Second, eliminating regional councils before undertaking a comprehensive review of service delivery may exacerbate existing problems rather than resolve them.

Simply removing elected regional councillors while awaiting a central government review of service delivery is unlikely to resolve pressing local problems or uncover issues not already well known to local officials.

Will voter turnout improve?

The government also presumes, without clear evidence, that regional councillors are a major contributor to local government problems. Even under the plan, local government would still face too many nationally imposed obligations and too little funding to operate effectively.

Instead, the new boards have potential to increase parochial non-regional decision-making and create legitimacy issues due to how votes are allocated.

Nor is there much reason to think that restructuring councils in this way would lead to higher voter turnout in local elections. Given New Zealand voters routinely navigate the complexities of MMP, it is unconvincing to attribute low turnout to voter confusion.

A more plausible explanation lies in the growing centralisation of policy making by successive governments – a trend that won’t change under this proposal.

Lastly, by removing regional constituencies, the proposal effectively eliminates the possibility of Māori constituencies at the regional level. Given the likely outcome of more centralised local government, this change would remove an important mechanism for Māori representation and participation as treaty partners.

Retaining the option of Māori wards and constituencies is crucial to reflecting local aspirations, supporting reconciliation and ensuring meaningful involvement in regional decision making.

With changes of this scale on the table, the consultation now underway deserves careful scrutiny of what might be simplified, but also what could be lost.

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

– ref. A major overhaul of NZ’s local government is underway – will it really fix what’s broken? – https://theconversation.com/a-major-overhaul-of-nzs-local-government-is-underway-will-it-really-fix-whats-broken-272424

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lowe, Chair in Contemporary History, Deakin University

Australians are deeply divided over whether January 26 is an appropriate day to celebrate Australia Day – and we are no longer debating it as much as doubling down in entrenched camps.

Over the past five years, we have tracked attitudes on whether Australia Day should continue to be celebrated on January 26 through the Deakin Contemporary History Survey.

The most striking result from our late 2025 wave is not a shift in overall opinion, but a hardening of opposition to changing the date. While the balance between those who support and those who oppose change has remained stable, fewer Australians are sitting in the middle. This means more are expressing strong disagreement with changing the date of Australia Day.

The statement “we should not celebrate Australia Day on 26 January” was included in the Deakin Contemporary History Survey in 2021, 2023, 2024 and late 2025.

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with this statement, from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The survey is a nationally representative online survey widely regarded as one of Australia’s most robust social surveys.

What did the survey find?

Across all four surveys, the overall distribution of opinion has remained strikingly stable. In 2021, around 38% of Australians agreed Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26, while just over 60% disagreed. By late 2025, those figures are effectively unchanged, with 37% opposing the date and 62% supporting its retention.

However, while there was some softening in opposition in 2023 and 2024, the latest results suggest a return to the long-term average rather than a new shift in sentiment. In effect, the community is split 40/60 on the question of whether to change or retain.

What has changed is the strength of people’s feelings. Between 2021 and 2025, the proportion who strongly disagreed with changing the date increased markedly (from 30% to 38%), while the share who simply disagreed declined (from 31% to 26%). This is illustrated below.

In other words, many Australians who already supported keeping Australia Day on January 26 have moved from mild to strong opposition.

These changes are not because one age or gender group has shifted relative to others. Younger Australians remain more supportive of change than older Australians, and women remain more supportive than men.

What has changed is the strength of views within groups. Among 18-34 year olds, the proportion that strongly disagree with changing the date rose from 16% in 2021 to 23% in 2025.

A similar pattern is evident among older Australians: for those aged 55-74, strong disagreement increased from 40% to 47%, and among those aged 75 and over it rose from 47% to 53%. The same hardening is visible by gender, with strong disagreement among men rising from 36% in 2021 to 41% in 2025, and among women from 25% to 33%. The result is a broad hardening of attitudes across age and gender groups, rather than a change in who supports or opposes change.

What does this tell us?

These findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution. Although each survey wave uses large, weighted samples, some age and gender subgroups are smaller in the later waves, particularly in 2025.

Even so, the consistency of patterns across age and gender groups suggests this reflects a real shift in attitudes rather than chance fluctuation. On the supportive side, there is a modest shift from agree to strongly agree between 2021 and 2025, suggesting some consolidation of the pro-change view, though this change is modest and should be interpreted cautiously.

This hardening of conservative views is perhaps not surprising in the current context. The debate around Indigenous rights, including the failure of the Voice referendum in October 2023, shows that many Australians do not support official truth-telling and recognition processes.

This reluctance is also evident in our 2025 survey, where only 48% of respondents agreed it was appropriate to rename places and institutions to reflect Indigenous names and histories.

Following the referendum’s failure, most state and territory governments have largely abandoned the task of leading their constituencies through such processes. Studies have shown a rise in explicit racism expressed towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities during and since the referendum.

The rise in voting support for One Nation, which mirrors the success of populist politicians in the United States and United Kingdom, provides further evidence of the rise of a more hardline, right-wing populism, which often celebrates rather than questions the history of European imperialism.

It will need strong leadership from politicians and civic and religious leaders if we are to find ways to bridge this deepening divide.

David Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Andrew Singleton receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Joanna Cruickshank receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Opposition to moving Australia Day from January 26 is hardening: new research – https://theconversation.com/opposition-to-moving-australia-day-from-january-26-is-hardening-new-research-273795

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Pate, Senior Lecturer in Physiotherapy, University of Technology Sydney

It happens in slow motion. Your six-year-old daughter is sprinting across the playground at school drop-off time when her toe catches on uneven ground. She goes down hard.

The playground goes silent. She freezes and looks up, straight at you.
In that split second she scans your face for data. Should she be terrified?

I’ve been there. I’d like to tell you that my pain scientist brain kicks in immediately. But honestly it’s usually my panicked parent brain that gets there first. My stomach drops and my instinct is to gasp, or rush in to fix it.

This reaction is typical because we want to protect our kids. However, these moments are opportunities to teach children that their bodies are adaptable. Our reactions teach them whether pain is a disaster to be feared, or a feeling that’s safe to feel.

Adults as the volume knob

Children look to adults and even borrow our nervous system to gauge danger. They read our tone and posture as clues to determine how worried they should feel.

Research into everyday pain shows incidents such as bumps, cuts and scrapes happen frequently. For active toddlers in daycare, they occur about once every three hours. In these moments, adults often respond to the child’s distress, such as crying, rather than the actual severity of the injury.

When we panic, we turn the child’s pain volume knob up. When parents are highly distressed and protective about their child’s pain, it can make children more fearful. They may avoid activity or have more trouble with pain over time.

On the other hand, remaining calm helps children turn the volume down. We teach them that the alarm can be loud without the threat being catastrophic.

Two phrases that can backfire

It’s tempting to try to switch the alarm off immediately. However, two common phrases can shut down a child’s signal for help too quickly.

“You are OK”

It’s a common assumption that pain is only real when there is visible damage. Telling a child they’re fine when they’re clearly hurting can feel dishonest. It suggests their internal signals are wrong.

“Don’t cry”

Crying is a healthy signal for help. Asking a child to suppress it suggests the sensation is too scary to be acknowledged, cutting communication without resolving the underlying feeling of threat.

The internal scan versus the spoken message

A better approach is to separate what you do in your head from what you say out loud. Staying calm doesn’t mean ignoring genuine warning signs. The goal is calibrated concern, which is a middle ground between panic and dismissiveness.

Before saying anything, do a rapid risk scan. If they’re safe, responsive and breathing, you have confirmed it’s not an emergency. (Parents should still watch for red flags such as vomiting, confusion, unusual sleepiness, or pain that worsens rather than improves.)

If the injury is a minor scrape, you can shift to validation: “that looked sore”, “you got a fright”, or “I am here”. You are confirming verbally that they’re safe.

Age matters

Toddlers (2 to 5 years) rely on your facial expressions to know how to feel. Keep words simple and use physical comfort.

Primary school-aged kids (6 to 12 years) may want to be more involved in the solution, such as helping clean a scrape.

Teens can need a mix of validation and space. Ask what they need from you instead of doing everything for them.

From protection to movement

Once the tears settle, the recovery phase shapes the child’s relationship with movement. For years, the standard advice was RICER (rest, ice, compression, elevation, referral). Now, emerging evidence suggests that complete rest may delay healing.

Updated guidelines have shifted to PEACE & LOVE. PEACE applies immediately: protect, elevate, avoid anti-inflammatories, compress, educate. LOVE follows after a few days: load, optimism, vascularisation (promote blood flow via cardio), exercise.

The big shift here is optimism and load. This approach teaches children their bodies are designed to heal, and guides them back to gentle movement.

Three tiny experiments to try

1. Name it to tame it

Help your child turn a scary feeling into a piece of data. We found that even children without chronic pain have average pain ratings that fluctuate by up to 6 points out of 10 over six weeks. This volatility is typical. For tweens and older, you can ask, “What number is your pain right now on a scale from 0–10?”. This implicitly shows them that pain is changeable and usually drops quickly.

2. Calm then choose

Your calm nervous system helps soothe theirs. Try getting down to their level and take three slow breaths together. Depending on their age, you can then offer a choice to regain control: “Do you want to sit with me a bit longer or try walking to the slide?”

3. Retell the story later

Research confirms children can change their concept of pain through stories. Later that night, try parent-child reminiscing, which is where you retell the story of the fall together. Focus on personal strengths: “You were brave. You took deep breaths and then you got back up and played again”. This accurately reframes the memory from “I got hurt” to “I got hurt and I coped”.

Good enough is enough

If you overreacted to a recent mishap, be kind to yourself. Kids benefit from “good enough” patterns where their pain is taken seriously and their bodies are seen as capable.

So, let’s take a breath when bumps happen. Your child is looking at you. You have an opportunity to show them they’re safe and that their capable body knows how to heal.

Joshua Pate has received government funding for his research. He has received speaker fees for presentations on pain and physiotherapy. He receives book royalties.

– ref. Comfort them or let them tough it out? How parents shape a child’s pain response – https://theconversation.com/comfort-them-or-let-them-tough-it-out-how-parents-shape-a-childs-pain-response-269811

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sandra van der Laan, Professor of Accounting, University of Sydney

All of us, sooner or later, will need to make a decision about the final resting place for ourselves or a loved one.

But the usual options offered by most funeral homes – burial or cremation – come with some pretty major environmental problems. Both involve huge amounts of energy, resources and pollution.

Some religions have clear rules around how a body should be laid to rest, but if you’ve got a broader set of options – and you can afford it – what are the alternatives to mainstream burial and cremation methods?

The burial problem

Burial is increasingly out of reach for many. It’s expensive and cemeteries are running out of space, particularly in urban areas.

While many cemeteries in Australia now have limited tenure on burial plots (25 years in most places, renewable up to 99 years), space is still at a premium.

Even if you can secure a spot in a cemetery, it’s worth noting it takes a vast amount of resources to create and transport a wooden coffin.

All that felling of trees, refining the wood, shaping it into a coffin, transporting the materials and final product – it adds up to a lot of greenhouse gases. And then there’s the additional resources used for memorials such as a headstone.

And, while embalming is not common in Australia, preserving bodies this way uses chemicals such as formaldehyde, which can contaminate the soil and groundwater. It also poses health risks to funeral workers.

What about more natural options?

Natural burial methods are a more environmentally friendly alternative.

Also referred to as green burials, this is where bodies are buried in shallow graves in biodegradable material, such as a shroud or cardboard coffin.

Again, however, physical space remains a challenge. There’s just not that many green burial sites in Australia, and securing a spot can be costly and difficult. It might also be very far from where you or your surviving family members live.

Another option known as “human composting” takes green burials a step further. That’s where human remains are transformed into nutrient-rich soil with the aid of organic matter. However, this method is currently not legal in Australia, despite the efforts of advocates.

What’s the issue with mainstream cremation techniques?

Cremation, chosen for around 70% of body disposals in Australia, is not particularly environmentally friendly.

Each cremation releases toxins such as mercury into the atmosphere, as well as a significant amount of of CO₂.

How much? Well, estimates vary but one 2021 report noted that the “total greenhouse impact, taking into account electricity, transport and resources inputs as well as natural gas, of a single cremation is around 430kg of CO₂ equivalent.”

Each standard burial as practiced in Australia, the same report noted, is responsible for the emission of 780kg of CO₂ equivalent.

Water cremation: greener but pricier

Water cremation, also known as alkaline hydrolysis, can reduce some of the environmental impacts of traditional flame cremation.

Water cremation produces far fewer emissions compared to flame cremation. It avoids the release of toxic fumes from burning things like mercury from dental fillings.

The process uses water and alkaline chemicals, which are heated and circulated in a stainless steel vessel to speed up decomposition.

The result is bone ash and a sterile liquid byproduct. The ash can be kept, buried or scattered in the same way as ashes from a flame cremation. The liquid can be recycled.

Currently water cremation is relatively expensive in Australia, costing around A$6,000 compared to around $1,000 for a flame cremation. However, it may become more affordable over time if the practice becomes more popular.

And while it is legal in most of Australia, availability is restricted as there are only a few operators nationwide.

What about donating my body to science?

Donating your body to science might appeal to some as a form of “recycling”.

However, university and hospital-based programs generally cremate remains after they finish using your body or tissues for research and education, unless the body has been embalmed. If it has been embalmed or the family has specific requests, the body will be given a simple burial subject to certain conditions.

Private body donation operators merely harvest usable tissue immediately after death, leaving the family to dispose of the body via whatever method they would have done anyway.

In the end

A key issue across all options is that many people want a spot they can go to pay respect and remember loved ones – a sense of place.

While cremated remains can be placed in a niche in a cemetery with a memorial plaque, more often they are scattered in a meaningful place.

However, with cemeteries now leaning toward limited tenure for funeral plots, any enduring sense of place might also be lost even if you choose to be buried.

Finally, we all need to make sure we are all having conversations about our final wishes so loved ones have the best opportunity to carry them out.

In the end, the executor of the estate has the ultimate say over what happens to the body, so choose your executor carefully. Most people entrusted to this role tend to carry out the wishes of the deceased, if they are clearly articulated and affordable.

Sandra van der Laan has received funding from CPA Australia.

Lee Moerman has received funding from CPA Australia. She is a volunteer with Tender Funerals, a community-based, not-for-profit funeral home. Tender Funerals offers wooden, woven and cardboard caskets.

– ref. Human composting, natural burials, water cremation: greener ways to go when you die – https://theconversation.com/human-composting-natural-burials-water-cremation-greener-ways-to-go-when-you-die-270969

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Boylan, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Edith Cowan University

Starting school is a big moment in a child’s life. It is a time filled with new routines, new people and new places. These changes can also mean it is sometimes a stressful time. But it doesn’t have to be.

Our recent research explored what helps children’s confidence as they begin formal schooling. More than 100 children aged three to six and 21 teachers participated in our study, which included interviews, observations and children’s drawings.

We found there are many simple, everyday things families can do to help children feel calm and ready for their first day.

Practise new skills

Our research shows children are often expected to be more independent at school than they are at home. They’ll need to open their own bag and lunchbox, organise their belongings and use the toilet without help.

Families can make the transition smoother by practising one or two of these skills each day in the lead‑up to school.

Encourage your child to pack and carry their bag, open and close their lunchbox, and manage any food packaging they’ll encounter, like zip-lock bags or containers.

Try packing their lunchbox during the holidays so they can practise opening items and learn what’s for morning tea and lunch. This also helps you spot packaging that’s too tricky (something teachers are always grateful for).

Set up routines

Young children need repeated practice to learn new tasks such as packing their bag, getting dressed, or organising what they need for the day.

In the schools we worked with, children transitioned more smoothly when parents practised getting-ready routines with them beforehand. Rehearsing the morning routine gives children a sense of what to expect, without the pressure of rushing out the door.

A simple visual chart on the fridge can help. For example, you might include three steps – “eat breakfast”, “brush teeth and hair”, “pack your bag”. This is usually enough for young children to manage at the start.

Get to know school’s places and spaces

Help your child feel familiar with their new setting before the first day by attending any orientation sessions or arranging a visit. Even walking around the school, driving past, or exploring the playground can make the environment feel safe.

Talk about what the day might involve for example,

you will meet your teacher at the classroom door and they will take you into the classroom. You’ll have a break where you can play on the equipment. I’ll be at the tree to pick you up in the afternoon.

Use any stories or short videos the school provides to build familiarity. The more children know what to expect, the more confident they’ll feel when they get to school.

Watch out for big feelings

Starting school is exciting but also tiring. Young children are adjusting to new routines, people and expectations. It’s normal for them to come home exhausted or irritable.

Keep afternoons calm and avoid extra activities so they have time to rest, play and recharge. Offer a snack and water as many children forget to drink during the day.

Once they’ve had downtime, gentle questions like “What was your favourite part of today?” work better than pressing for details. This means you are not pressuring kids to go over things when they are tired and helps avoid emotional outbursts. Don’t worry if they can’t remember names yet.

Remember, this transition can be tiring for parents too – so keeping after-school time simple helps everyone to manage their emotions.

Get to know the teachers and school

It’s not just children who prepare for starting school – schools prepare too. Teachers want to get to know your child and family because strong relationships help them support children more effectively.

Share things like the language you speak at home, your family culture, and your child’s routines.

Feel free to ask questions about the daily schedule. Research shows us when families and schools exchange information, a child’s transition to school is smoother.

Leonie Barblett and Amelia Ruscoe from Edith Cowan University were co-researchers on the research mentioned in this article.

Fiona Boylan received funding from the Association of Independent Schools Western Australia for this research.

– ref. Practise using bags and lunchboxes: how to build your child’s confidence as they start school – https://theconversation.com/practise-using-bags-and-lunchboxes-how-to-build-your-childs-confidence-as-they-start-school-273800

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Scaife, Adjunct Associate Professor and Director, Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology

Few people globally have influenced business, sport, the environment and philanthropy like Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard.

Chouinard’s inventive approach across these spheres makes the recent biography Dirtbag Billionaire by The New York Times journalist David Gelles an intriguing read.

Review: Dirtbag Billionaire: How Yvon Chouinard Built Patagonia, Made a Fortune, and Gave It All Away – David Gelles (Text Publishing)

The anti-authoritarian entrepreneur started out making basic rock-climbing equipment. He then built a business reputation based on ethical commerce, and eventually gave away his company, promising all profits to fighting the climate crisis.

From an Australian perspective, there are lessons to learn given growing environmental and climate concerns, while both corporate giving and corporate distrust have surged in the past decade.

The wild early years

Chouinard prefers the “dirtbag” label to that of businessman or billionaire. It’s a reference from his 1960s lifestyle, a term for someone who sleeps rough, roams widely and disdains material possessions.

As a young climber chasing adventures with friends on rock faces, rivers and waves, Chouinard lived frugally. He ate cat food, squirrels and porcupines.

In these years, inventive Chouinard revolutionised climbing. Using a junkyard forge, he hand-crafted innovative, reusable, softer metal spikes to drive into rock faces. At first selling from his car boot, he built up a US and international customer base.

But, faithful to his environmental values, Chouinard then risked the company by ditching his original top-selling metal spike that damaged rock faces for one that did less harm to the cliff face.

Along the way he employed many fellow climbing, surfing and kayaking enthusiasts, prioritising employee wellbeing and engagement in the business. This was decades before employees were seen as a stakeholder, or internal culture was considered important in a business.

A clash of values

However, with the success of his Patagonia clothing business formed in 1973, Chouinard the conservationist had entered a highly capitalistic sector. The retail market was based on trend-driven overconsumption and exploitative labour and environmental practices.

His quest to do capitalism differently is instructive.

Despite higher costs, Chouinard moved the company into organic cotton use and encouraged regenerative topsoil practices. The principled actions built customer trust and loyalty.

His approach also inspired others who saw decisions that put environmental considerations above profit were good business all round.

As Patagonia grew into a billion-dollar company, he maintained a policy of donating 1% of sales (not just profit) to the environment, no matter how tight the times.

Chouinard co-established 1% for the Planet in 2001 as an accrediting body to encourage companies worldwide to donate 1% of their sales to environmental organisations. Since founding, over 11,000 companies in 110 countries have donated a total of US$823 million (A$1.2 billion).

Chouinard also actively called out corporate greenwashing, and Patagonia was a corporate activist on multiple issues. This included suing US President Donald Trump in 2017 to keep wilderness reserves safe from oil and gas exploration and land development.

One of the first B Corps

In another leadership move, Patagonia in 2012 became the first California company to become a certified Benefit Corporation, better known as a B Corp.

This is a legally binding, transparently measured commitment to act sustainably, live up to independent performance standards and consider worker, society and environmental interests.

Then, aged 83 in 2022, Chouinard established a pioneering succession trust structure and nonprofit collective for the business. This would see Patagonia continue as an independent, environment-led activist company rather than be floated or sold and have its values and foundations diluted.

This organisational restructure supercharged Chouinard’s philanthropy.

The family retains a voice, while giving away 100% of their estimated US$3 billion and all of Patagonia’s future profits that are not reinvested in the business. (US$100 million in 2022).

Even the legendary industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie only gave away 90% of his fortune.

Lessons for future philanthropists

My previous research records the top five motivations for Australian philanthropists as:

• making a difference
• giving back to the community
• personal satisfaction
• aligning with moral or philosophical beliefs, and
• setting an example.

Chouinard’s philanthropy touches on all of these.

US philanthropy researcher Paul Schervish uses the phrase “hyperagency” to capture the character and capacity that some individuals have to achieve the outcomes they deem important for society.

Schervish suggests such changemakers build their own world rather than staying within the constraints of traditional approaches.

Chouinard built his own version of capitalism. He continues to argue the Earth is the only resource base for business, and is therefore the prime business stakeholder. Without it, there are no customers, shareholders, employees or business.

Patagonia’s core mission became: “We’re in business to save our home planet”. The company established Earth as its major shareholder.

A message in Dirtbag Billionaire for givers small and large, individual and corporate, is that authentic giving is about values.

Such authentic giving across a lifetime using money, time, voice, networks, workplaces and ethical principles is rarely so well on display as in the life of Yvon Chouinard.

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

– ref. How this ‘dirtbag’ billionaire chose to do capitalism differently – https://theconversation.com/how-this-dirtbag-billionaire-chose-to-do-capitalism-differently-272271

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Serena Love, Honorary Research Fellow in Archaeology, The University of Queensland

In ancient Egypt, what was the Sphinx all about? – Effie, age 8, New Plymouth, New Zealand.

One of the most mysterious and iconic monuments of ancient Egypt is the Great Sphinx of Giza.

You’ve probably seen pictures of it — a huge statue with a lion’s body and a human head, sitting proudly near the Great Pyramids.

But what is the Sphinx? Why was it built? And what does it mean?

What is the Sphinx?

The Great Sphinx is a giant stone statue carved from the limestone bedrock.

It lies on the Giza plateau, on the west bank of the Nile River, near Cairo in Egypt.

The Sphinx is enormous — about 73 metres long (that’s longer than a football field!) and 20 metres tall, roughly the height of a five-story building.

It was carved around 4,500 years ago during the time of the Old Kingdom, the earliest days of ancient Egyptian civilisation.

The word “sphinx” itself comes from ancient Greek, but the Egyptians had another name for it.

They called it “shesep-ankh”, which means “living image”.

This name gives us a clue to what the statue meant to the people who built it. They saw the Sphinx as a living symbol of something powerful and divine.

The face of a pharaoh

If you look closely at the Sphinx, you’ll notice its face looks human.

Most Egyptian experts believe the face was carved to look like a real person — a pharaoh named Khafre. But there is some strong evidence to suggest it might have been started by his father, Khufu.

Pharaohs were the rulers of Egypt, considered half-human and half-god. They built great monuments to show their power and to help their souls live forever in the afterlife.

Pharaoh Khafre built the second of the three pyramids at Giza.

The Sphinx sits right next to his pyramid complex, which makes many historians think it was built to watch over his tomb.

The Sphinx, then, may show the pharaoh as a guardian — strong like a lion, but wise and godlike like a human.

The body of a lion

The body of the Sphinx is that of a lion, an animal the Egyptians admired for its strength and courage.

Lions were seen as protectors and symbols of power. They watched over sacred places, palaces, and tombs. So, when the ancient sculptors shaped the Sphinx from bedrock, they combined the mind of a pharaoh with the strength and power of a lion.

This mixture created a super powerful guardian creature — one that could protect Egypt and its kings for eternity.

Guardian of the horizon

Some ancient texts call the Sphinx “Hor-em-akhet”, which means “Horus of the Horizon”.

Horus was one of the most important gods in Egypt, often shown as a falcon who ruled the sky. Calling the Sphinx “Horus of the Horizon” suggests it was seen as an image of the rising sun — a divine protector connected to light, kingship, and rebirth.

If you stand in front of the Sphinx at sunrise, you can see how it faces directly east, toward the rising sun. This was likely no accident.

Ancient Egyptians carefully aligned their temples and monuments with the stars and the sun because they believed these heavenly bodies connected their world to the gods.

The Sphinx was part of a sacred plan linking earth, sky, and eternity.

The changing Sphinx

Over thousands of years, wind and sand have changed the way the Sphinx looks.

Its nose and beard are missing, parts of its headdress are damaged, and its body has been worn down by the desert.

But pieces of the Sphinx’s beard have been found and are now in museums. Some even say the statue was once brightly painted — red on the face, blue and yellow on the headdress.

Many Egyptians and travellers continued to visit and protect the Sphinx long after it was built. Pharaohs and priests repaired it many times.

One famous story tells how a young prince named Thutmose IV took a nap in front of the buried Sphinx, which had been buried up to the neck by drifting desert sands. In a dream, the Sphinx spoke to him, promising that if he cleared away the sand and restored the statue, he would one day be king.

The prince did as he was told — and he did become pharaoh! To honour the Sphinx, he placed a large stone tablet, or “stela”, between its paws. That inscription still stands there today.

A symbol of mystery

Even after all this time, the Sphinx keeps many secrets. We still don’t know exactly how long it took to carve, why its features were chosen, or if we have interpreted the symbolism correctly.

Some legends say the Sphinx guards a hidden chamber or treasures buried beneath it. Archaeologists haven’t found a treasure room, but modern scans have revealed small cavities and tunnels inside the bedrock — proof that the Sphinx still has more stories to tell.

Today, people travel from all over the world to see the Sphinx. It teaches a powerful lesson: even thousands of years ago, people were dreamers, builders, and artists. They asked big questions about life, death, and eternity — just like we do today.

Serena Love 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. Curious Kids: in ancient Egypt, what was the Sphinx all about? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-in-ancient-egypt-what-was-the-sphinx-all-about-268182