NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-Evening Report: The TGA has approved donanemab for Alzheimer’s disease. How does this drug work and who will be able to access it?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Macfarlane, Head of Clinical Services, Dementia Support Australia, & Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University

    Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock

    This week, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approved a drug called donanemab for people in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease.

    Donanemab has previously been approved in a number of other countries, including the United States.

    So what is donanemab, and who will be able to access it in Australia?

    How does donanemab work?

    There are more than 100 different causes of dementia, but Alzheimer’s disease alone accounts for about 70% of these, making it the most common form of dementia.

    The disease is believed to be caused by the accumulation in the brain of two abnormal proteins, amyloid and tau. The first is thought to be particularly important, and the “amyloid hypothesis” – which suggests amyloid is the key cause of Alzheimer’s disease – has driven research for many years.

    Donanemab is a “monoclonal antibody” treatment. Antibodies are proteins the immune system produces that bind to harmful foreign “invaders” in the body, or targets. A monoclonal antibody has one specific target. In the case of donanemab it’s the amyloid protein. Donanemab binds to amyloid protein deposits (plaques) in the brain and allows our bodies to remove them.

    Donanemab is given monthly, via intravenous infusion.

    What does the evidence say?

    Australia’s approval of donanemab comes as a result of a clinical trial involving 1,736 people published in 2023.

    This trial showed donanemab resulted in a significant slowing of disease progression in a group of patients who had either early Alzheimer’s disease, or mild cognitive impairment with signs of Alzheimer’s pathology. Before entering the trial, all patients had the presence of amyloid protein detected via PET scanning.

    Participants were randomised, and half received donanemab, while the other half received a placebo, over 18 months.

    The accumulation of amyloid plaques in brain tissue is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.
    Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock

    For those who received the active drug, their Alzheimer’s disease progressed 35% more slowly over 18 months compared to those who were given the placebo. The researchers ascertained this using the Integrated Alzheimer’s Disease Rating Scale, which measures cognition and function.

    Those who received donanemab also demonstrated large reductions in the levels of amyloid in the brain (as measured by PET scans). The majority, by the end of the trial, were considered to be below the threshold that would normally indicate the presence of Alzheimer’s disease.

    These results certainly seem to vindicate the amyloid hypothesis, which had been called into question by the results of multiple failed previous studies. They represent a major advance in our understanding of the disease.

    That said, patients in the study did not improve in terms of cognition or function. They continued to decline, albeit at a significantly slower rate than those who were not treated.

    The actual clinical significance has been a topic of debate. Some experts have questioned whether the meaningfulness of this result to the patient is worth the potential risks.

    Is the drug safe?

    Some 24% of trial participants receiving the drug experienced brain swelling. The rates rose to 40.6% in those possessing two copies of a gene called ApoE4.

    Although three-quarters of people who developed brain swelling experienced no symptoms from this, there were three deaths in the treatment group during the study related to donanemab, likely a result of brain swelling.

    These risks require regular monitoring with MRI scans while the drug is being given.

    Some 26.8% of those who received donanemab also experienced small bleeds into the brain (microhaemorrhages) compared to 12.5% of those taking the placebo.

    Cost is a barrier

    Reports indicate donanemab could cost anywhere between A$40,000 and $80,000 each year in Australia. This puts it beyond the reach of many who might benefit from it.

    Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of donanemab, has made an application for the drug to be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, with a decision pending perhaps within a couple of months. While this would make the drug substantially more affordable for patients, it will represent a large cost to taxpayers.

    The cost of the drug is in addition to costs associated with the monitoring required to ensure its safety and efficacy (such as doctor visits, MRIs and PET scans).

    Donanemab won’t be accessible to all patients with Alzheimer’s disease.
    pikselstock/Shutterstock

    Who will be able to access it?

    This drug is only of benefit for people with early Alzheimer’s-type dementia, so not everybody with Alzheimer’s disease will get access to it.

    Almost 80% of people who were screened to participate in the trial were found unsuitable to proceed.

    The terms of the TGA approval specify potential patients will first need to be found to have specific levels of amyloid protein in their brains. This would be ascertained either by PET scanning or by lumbar puncture sampling of spinal fluid.

    Also, patients with two copies of the ApoE4 gene have been ruled unsuitable to receive the drug. The TGA has judged the risk/benefit profile for this group to be unfavourable. This genetic profile accounts for only 2% of the general population, but 15% of people with Alzheimer’s disease.

    Improving diagnosis and tempering expectations

    It’s estimated more than 400,000 Australians have dementia. But only 13% of people with dementia currently receive a diagnosis within a year of developing symptoms.

    Given those with very early disease stand to benefit most from this treatment, we need to expand our dementia diagnostic services significantly.

    Finally, expectations need to be tempered about what this drug can reasonably achieve. It’s important to be mindful this is not a cure.

    Steve Macfarlane was an investigator on the donanemab trial, but received no direct compensation from Eli Lily for being so. Separately, has done consultancy work for Eli Lilly, for which he’s received payments.

    – ref. The TGA has approved donanemab for Alzheimer’s disease. How does this drug work and who will be able to access it? – https://theconversation.com/the-tga-has-approved-donanemab-for-alzheimers-disease-how-does-this-drug-work-and-who-will-be-able-to-access-it-257321

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from The Hill: Coalition is being glued together again after crisis week

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

    The Coalition is being glued together again, after a Liberal Party meeting on Friday gave the go ahead for Liberal leader Sussan Ley to negotiate with Nationals leader David Littleproud on the fine print of a settlement on policy.

    The Liberal party room agreed to accept broadly the Nationals’ four policy demands, with the two leaders to deal with the details.

    A new agreement between the parties is expected within days.

    The rapprochement followed days of chaos after the Nationals on Tuesday walked out of the Coalition.

    The turmoil has done significant damage to Littleproud, who has received widespread criticism of his handling of the relationship, including from within his own party. The crisis has raised questions about whether he will survive in his position in the longer term.

    The Liberal meeting had before it four policies that the Nationals insisted should be kept, and not be caught up in the Liberals’ planned review of all policies.

    The four were:

    • removing the moratorium on nuclear energy, with a review of the remaining elements of the nuclear policy

    • a $20 billion Regional Australia Future Fund, including a $1 billion annual budget allocation until the fund matured

    • court-ordered divestiture powers in relation to major supermarkets and “big box” retailers

    • and Universal Service Obligation reforms to boost mobile phone and internet services for regional Australians.

    The Nationals’ demand on nuclear drops the core of the policy the opposition took to the election, which was for the government to fund a string of nuclear power plants.

    The Liberals are divided over nuclear energy, with some wanting any policy on it scrapped.

    Probably the most difficult of the Nationals’ policy points for the Liberals is the divestiture power, which was controversial within the Liberals when it was adopted last term as opposition policy.

    A number of Liberals are particularly opposed to extending it to “big box” retailers.

    There was also some concern among Liberals about the fiscal arrangements around the regional fund – whether it should be off budget or on budget.

    While Liberals resent the Nationals’ behaviour, they were also aware of the political problems presented by a Coalition split and were anxious to get the two parties together again.

    In a provocative tweet the Nationals Matt Canavan said: “Well done David Littleproud! Liberals back down on all requests.”

    “Great win for the Nationals.”

    Canavan ran against Littleproud for the leadership after the election.

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

    – ref. View from The Hill: Coalition is being glued together again after crisis week – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-coalition-is-being-glued-together-again-after-crisis-week-257332

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: From peasant fodder to posh fare: how snails and oysters became luxury foods

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garritt C. Van Dyk, Senior Lecturer in History, University of Waikato

    An Oyster cellar in Leith John Burnet, 1819; National Galleries of Scotland, Photo: Antonia Reeve

    Oysters and escargot are recognised as luxury foods around the world – but they were once valued by the lower classes as cheap sources of protein.

    Less adventurous eaters today see snails as a garden pest, and are quick to point out that freshly shucked oysters are not only raw but also alive when they are eaten.

    How did these unusual ingredients become items of conspicuous consumption?

    From garden snail to gastronomy

    Eating what many consider to be a slimy nuisance seems almost counter-intuitive, but consuming land snails has an ancient history, dating to the Palaeolithic period, some 30,000 years ago in eastern Spain.

    Ancient Romans also dined on snails, and spread their eating habits across their empire into Europe.

    Lower and middle class Romans ate snails from their gardens, while elite consumers ate specially farmed snails, fed spices, honey and milk.

    An Ancient Roman mosaic dating to the 4th century AD depicting a basket of snails, Basilica di Santa Maria Assunta, Aquileia, Italy.
    Carole Raddato/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    Pliny the Elder (AD 24–79) described how snails were raised in ponds and given wine to fatten them up.

    The first French recipe for snails appears in 1390, in Le Ménagier de Paris (The Good Wife’s Guide), but not in other cookbooks from the period.

    In 1530, a French treatise on frogs, snails, turtles and artichokes considered all these foods bizarre, but surprisingly popular. Some of the appeal had to do with avoiding meat on “lean” days. Snails were classified as fish by the Catholic Church, and could even be eaten during Lent.

    For the next 200 years, snails only appeared in Parisian cookbooks with an apology for including such a disgusting ingredient. This reflected the taste of upper-class urbanites, but snails were still eaten in the eastern provinces.

    Schneckenweib, or Snail Seller, illustrated by Johann Christian Brand in Vienna, after 1798.
    Wien Museum

    An 1811 cookbook from Metz, in the Alsace region in northeastern France, describes raising snails like the Romans, and a special platter, l’escargotière, for serving them. The trend did not travel to Paris until after 1814.

    French diplomat Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1754–1838) hosted a dinner for Russian Tsar Alexander I, after he marched into Paris following the allied forces’ defeat of Napoleon in 1814.

    The chef catering the meal was the father of French cuisine Marie-Antoine Carême, a native of Burgundy, spiritual home of the now famous escargots de Bourgogne.

    Carême served the Tsar what would become a classic recipe, prepared with garlic, parsley and butter. Allegedly, the Tsar raved about the “new” dish, and snails became wildly popular. A recipe for Burgundy snails first appeared in a French culinary dictionary published in 1825.

    It is ironic that it took the approval of a foreign emperor, who had just conquered Napoleon, to restore luxury status to escargot, a food that became a symbol of French cuisine.

    Snails remain popular today in France, with consumption peaking during the Christmas holidays, but May 24 is National Escargot Day in France.

    Oysters: the original fast food

    Oysters are another ancient food, as seen in fossils dating to the Triassic Era, 200 million years ago. Evidence of fossilised oysters are found on every major land mass, and there is evidence of Indigenous oyster fisheries in North America and Australia that dates to the Holocene period, about 12,000 years ago.

    There are references in classical Greek texts to what are probably oysters, by authors like Aristotle and Homer. Oyster shells found at Troy confirm they were a favoured food. Traditionally served as a first course at banquets in Ancient Greece, they were often cooked, sometimes with exotic spices.

    Music-cover sheet for ‘Bonne-Bouche’ by Emile Waldteufel, 1847-1897.
    © The Trustees of the British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA

    Pliny the Elder refers to oysters as a Roman delicacy. He recorded methods of the pioneer of Roman oyster farming, Sergius Orata, who brought the best specimens from across the Empire to sell to elite customers.

    Medieval coastal dwellers gathered oysters at low tide, while wealthy inland consumers would have paid a premium for shellfish, a perishable luxury, transported to their castles.

    French nobles in 1390 preferred cooked oysters, roasted over coals or poached in broths, perhaps as a measure to prevent food poisoning. As late as the 17th century, authors cautioned:

    But if they be eaten raw, they require good wine […] to aid digestion.

    Oyster Seller, Jacob Gole, 1688–1724.
    Rijksmuseum

    By the 18th century, small oysters were a popular pub snack, and larger ones were added as meat to the stew pot. That century, it is believed as many as 100,000 oysters were eaten each day in Edinburgh and the shells from the tavern in the basement filled in gaps in the brickwork at Gladstone’s Land in Edinburgh’s Royal Mile.

    Scottish oyster farms in the Firth of Forth, an inlet of the North Sea, produced 30 million oysters in 1790, but continual over-harvesting took its toll.

    By 1883 only 6,000 oysters were landed, and the population was declared extinct in 1957.

    As wild oyster stocks dwindled, large oyster farms developed in cities like New York in the 19th century. Initially successful, they were polluted, and infected by typhoid from sewage. An outbreak in 1924 killed 150 people, the deadliest food poisoning in United States history.

    Costumes of Naples: Oyster Sellers, c. 1906–10.
    Rijksmuseum

    Far from the overabundance of oysters we once had, over-fishing, pollution, and invasive species all threaten oyster populations worldwide today. Due to this scarcity of wild oysters and the resources required to safely farm environmentally sustainable oysters, they are now a premium product.

    Next on the menu

    Scarcity made oysters a luxury, and a Tsar’s approval elevated snails to gourmet status. Could insects become the next status food?

    Ancient Romans ate beetles and grasshoppers, and cultures around the world consume insects, but not (yet) as luxury products.

    Maybe the right influencer can make honey-roasted locust the next species to jump from paddock to plate.

    Garritt C. Van Dyk has received funding from the Getty Research Institute.

    – ref. From peasant fodder to posh fare: how snails and oysters became luxury foods – https://theconversation.com/from-peasant-fodder-to-posh-fare-how-snails-and-oysters-became-luxury-foods-254299

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: There is a growing number of ‘super-sized’ schools. Does the number of students matter?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Rowe, Associate Professor in Education, Deakin University

    LBeddoe/Shutterstock

    Earlier this week, The Sydney Morning Herald reported one of Sydney’s top public high schools had more than 2,000 students for the first time, thanks to the booming population in the area.

    This follows similar reports of other “super-sized” schools in Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland.

    Parents may be wondering if a school’s size will impact their child’s opportunities or experience. What does the research say?

    A controversial subject

    Policy-makers have been concerned about school sizes for decades. This largely relates to declining enrolments in some areas and growing demand in others. For example, in Victoria during the Kennett government in the 1990s, some schools were merged into “super schools”.

    Super schools are attractive to policy-makers due to their ability to pool resources. However, anecdotally, parents have tended to oppose mergers on the basis that big schools detract from the community feel and personal relationships.

    There is no national data on average school size, although you can check individual school sizes on the MySchool website.

    Education authorities consider a school to be “small” if it has fewer than 300 students for primary school and fewer than 700 for high school.

    What does the research say?

    Australian-based research tends to support larger schools, on the basis they provide more curriculum choices. In a 2014 study published in the Journal of Education Policy, the authors wrote:

    large schools have more resources and are therefore better placed to offer a large range of curriculum, often including both academic and vocational subjects.

    A 2023 study similarly argued:

    smaller schools are generally less able to offer a wide range and diversity of curricular offerings compared to larger schools.

    Small schools can be beneficial

    But other education advocates argue small schools better facilitate participatory democratic environments for young people, improve discipline and sense of community.

    A 2009 review of 57 studies (the majority from the United States) published after 1990 recommended high schools do not have more than 1,000 students.

    The review said smaller schools can offer a community-like feel for students and are more likely to have smaller class sizes. A smaller school may be particularly advantageous for neurodiverse students if there are lower levels of noise and movement.

    A US-based study from 1991 found schools with less than 400 students lead to better student participation, attendance and satisfaction with school:

    The two primary arguments for large schools, cost savings and curriculum enhancement, pale in comparison with the positive schooling outcomes […] achieved by small schools.

    Smaller schools can offer a stronger sense of community.
    Dean Drobot/ Shutterstock

    But context matters

    In 2000, the Gates Foundation had a “big idea” to break up large high schools and turn them into “small learning communities” of 400 or fewer students.

    The foundation believed the initiative would lift graduation rates and student achievement, especially among minority students, because of the close relationships between students and teachers.

    But by 2008, the foundation conceded it had not worked – there had been no “dramatic improvements” in the number of students who leave high school adequately prepared for further study.

    But it’s not really about size

    So the research offers a mixed picture – this strongly suggests the size of a school on its own is not the most important factor.

    We also need to look at factors such as class size. Research shows smaller class sizes and lower teacher to student ratios are beneficial for student outcomes.

    Smaller class sizes and lower teacher to student ratios can lead to more one-on-one attention, improved relationships and lower noise levels in a classroom.

    Some studies have categorised “small classes” as between 13-17 students and larger classes as between 22-25 students.

    Teaching quality may also be improved with a smaller class size, as the teacher has more time to tailor their instruction to individual students.

    Importantly, the size of a school overall does not necessarily determine class sizes. A large school or a small school can still have large class sizes, and still struggle for quality one-on-one time.

    Similarly, a large school can still offer a strong sense of community and positive relationships between teachers and peers, depending on the way the school is organised (for example, a “school-within-a-school” or specific learning group within the school).

    If a small school is not well-resourced or does not have enough teachers, it may struggle to provide a positive, happy learning environment.

    The point is the school size on its own is not necessarily a positive or negative. What matters is what else is going on inside that school and whether it has the funding and resources to offer smaller class sizes, specialised teachers and access to a wide variety of subjects.

    Emma Rowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. There is a growing number of ‘super-sized’ schools. Does the number of students matter? – https://theconversation.com/there-is-a-growing-number-of-super-sized-schools-does-the-number-of-students-matter-257012

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australian roads are getting deadlier – pedestrians and males are among those at greater risk

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne

    At least ten people died in fatal crashes earlier this month in a single 48-hour period on Victorian roads. It was the latest tragic demonstration of the mounting road trauma in Australia.

    In the decade up to 2020, the national road toll was gradually declining, albeit with some fluctuations. But the trend has since reversed, with fatalities rising steadily year after year.

    According to the latest official data, 1,296 people died on Australian roads in the year to April. 108 lives were lost last month alone, almost 15% more than the average for April over the previous five years.

    While our population has increased by about 6% over this five-year period, our road deaths have gone up by 18.5%.

    Road fatalities rarely follow evenly distributed averages. They sometimes spike, as they have in Victoria. And while we must never lose sight of the fact that these are people, and not just data, there is value in interrogating clusters when they occur.

    Victoria breakdown

    In the 12 months to May 20 this year, 118 lives were lost on Victorian roads, up 8.3% on the previous year and well above the five-year average of 100 annual deaths.

    The sharpest increases by transport mode have been among pedestrians (up 24%), one of the most vulnerable road-user groups. And a new threat has emerged with the first publicly reported case in Australia of a pedestrian dying after being struck by an electric bike.

    At least one pattern stands out from the recent cluster: five of the eight crashes occurred outside metropolitan Melbourne. This reflects the longstanding reality that fatal collisions remain disproportionately common in regional and remote areas. Over the 12 months, country road deaths have risen by 11%, compared to a 2% increase in metropolitan Melbourne.

    A large share of road deaths continue to occur in the country.
    Inge Blessas/Shutterstock

    Another striking detail is the gender distribution. Male deaths are up 22% on the previous period and now comprise nearly 80% of all fatalities. In contrast, female deaths have declined by 33%.

    Another trend that stands out is the rising toll among older road users. In the last 12 months, 40 people aged 60 and over have died on Victorian roads – a 25% increase on the previous period.

    4 National trends

    The national road fatality data tells us some of these trends are not exclusive to Victoria. They reflect what is happening across the country.

    1. Vulnerable road users: Nationally, pedestrians and motorcyclists have experienced sustained increases in lives lost for at least four years in a row. The share of pedestrians in total road deaths has risen from 11% in 2021 to 14% in the latest period. Despite the growing number, motorcyclist fatalities have remained relatively stable at about 20% of all deaths.

    2. Gender disparity: Men continue to be disproportionately represented in the national road toll, accounting for approximately 75% of all road deaths in Australia.

    3. Older age groups: In the 12 months to April 2025, deaths among individuals aged 75 and over increased by nearly 19% to 185.

    4. Regional and remote areas: in the 12 months to April 2024, there were roughly 818 deaths on country roads, compared to 400 in metropolitan areas.

    What do the trends tell us?

    There are several key points in the data.

    First, the persistent over-representation of men in fatalities remains a defining feature of the road toll. This gender imbalance is not specific to Australia.

    But put simply, we still know very little about what’s driving this pattern. Known behavioural and physiological sex-based differences don’t fully explain the scale of the disparity.

    The rise in fatalities among older Australians does not appear to be particularly abnormal when tracked with demographic changes. From 2020 to 2024, the number of Australians aged 75 and over increased by nearly 31%. In comparison, fatalities in this age group rose by around 25% over the same period. This suggests that the relative risk for older Australians has not necessarily increased.

    As for rural and regional areas, approximately two-thirds of road deaths occur in these areas, while only one-third of Australians reside there. Despite years of acknowledgment, this urban–rural divide in road safety remains wide and unresolved.

    SUVs a menace?

    While vehicles have become safer for their occupants, they have become more dangerous for other road users, especially pedestrians.

    One contributing factor could be the fast growing dominance of SUVs and light trucks in Australia.

    A recent international review that pooled the findings of 24 studies found SUVs were associated with significantly higher fatality rates in crashes involving vulnerable road users, compared to smaller cars. The effect was particularly pronounced for children.

    Heavier vehicles, such as SUVs, pose a higher road risk to pedestrians.
    King Ropes Access/Shutterstock

    The dangers are not limited to pedestrians. In two-vehicle collisions, increasing the striking vehicle’s weight by around 450 kilograms raises the probability of a fatality in the other vehicle by 40–50%.

    New targets

    Australian governments have adopted a Vision Zero goal of no road deaths or serious injuries by 2050.

    The complete elimination of fatalities should remain our moral benchmark. But the current data suggests intermediate targets are urgently needed.

    A more achievable near-term priority may be to first reverse the rising national toll by focusing on where the greatest preventable harms persist: vulnerable road users, especially pedestrians, males and non-urban roads.

    Milad Haghani receives funding from The Australian Government.

    Iman Taheri Sarteshnizi 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. Australian roads are getting deadlier – pedestrians and males are among those at greater risk – https://theconversation.com/australian-roads-are-getting-deadlier-pedestrians-and-males-are-among-those-at-greater-risk-256994

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ Budget 2025: funding growth at the expense of pay equity for women could cost National in the long run

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Curtin, Professor of Politics and Policy, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    Pay equity protest outside parliament on budget day, May 22 2025. Getty Images

    In 1936, when the National Party was created through a merger of the United and Reform parties, there was a recognition among the power brokers that attracting women’s votes was crucial.

    National’s women’s organisations were integral to mobilising support. Throughout the 1940s, the party’s publicity material promised the women of New Zealand a happy family life. This was a consistent approach over the next 20 years, and National was rewarded with the women’s vote.

    Intermittent research on gender differences in vote choice between 1963 and 1993 indicate women made up between 45% and 51% of National’s support compared to 36% and 43% of Labour’s support.

    After 1996, this trend became less consistent. The New Zealand Election Study indicates a decreasing share of the women’s vote going to National, and fluctuations in vote choice among both women and men.

    Given the advent of proportional representation, some volatility may be expected. But there are also some constants. There is evidence women are more likely than men to support government spending on social policy, and they are significantly less likely than men to vote for National’s coalition partners NZ First and ACT.

    Now, with Budget 2025 – in particular its reliance on funds that would otherwise have gone towards settling pay equity claims – National’s historical success at attracting the women’s vote may be under threat.

    Growth before pay equity

    The budget represents a ruthless determination to deliver economic growth, including through its centrepiece “Investment Boost” tax breaks for businesses investing in productive assets.

    There is additional funding for health, defence, education and disability services, and the establishment of a social investment fund, and the budget left national superannuation untouched (for the remainder of this coalition government’s term, at least).

    It focused instead on KiwiSaver. Contributions from employers and employees will increase from 3% to 4%, while the government contribution will be halved for those earning under NZ$180,000 and cancelled for those earning over this amount.

    In summary, the new operational spend comes to $6.7 billion while savings, reprioritised spending and revenue-raising initiatives totalled $5.3 billion. As a result, the government has produced the lowest operational allowance in a decade ($1.3 billion) and promised $4 billion in new capital expenditure.

    But it was the radical restructuring and cancellation of pay equity for a range of undervalued female-dominated occupations that funded this budget. Almost half of the $12 billion recouped will be spent on the business tax incentives.

    The government expects the initiative will increase GDP and wages by 1% to 1.5% over the next 20 years. But given the gender-segregated structure of New Zealand’s labour market, it may take some time for women to benefit from the Investment Boost.

    Pay equity peril: Finance Minister Nicola Willis delivers the budget while Prime Minister Christopher Luxon looks on.
    Getty Images

    The gender gap and economic growth

    Applying a systematic and evidence-based gender analysis as part of the budget preparation process would have revealed more inclusive ways of delivering economic growth.

    For example, OECD modelling demonstrates the historical importance of increases in women’s labour market participation for economic growth, but notes that persistent gender gaps remain in productive capcity and hours of employment.

    Closing these gaps could potentially add a 0.1 percentage point of additional economic growth per year, culminating in a 3.9% boost to GDP in the next 35 years.

    Moreover, increasing women’s labour force participation may be a valuable mechanism to limit declines in the size of the labour force, given the rapidly ageing population.

    Such an outcome would require increased government investment in childcare and early childhood education for under twos, ideally for more than 20 hours per week.

    This would be a significant investment, given OECD data shows the net cost of childcare in New Zealand is as much as 38% of a two-earner couple’s average earnings (after accounting for government subsidies or benefits). This is considerably more expensive than most OECD member states.

    Potential cost to National

    Income and spending averages often mask more extreme impacts for different groups of women and men. For example, traditional economic models value labour used in the production of goods and services in the “market economy” but exclude the production of goods and services for their own use.

    For wāhine Māori, non-market work includes care for whānau, community and land, as well as upholding the mana of the marae, and the intergenerational transfer of knowledge.

    Finally, implementing pay equity, recognising the economic value of the unpaid care economy, and providing increased financial support for childcare, would also contribute to closing the gender pension gap.

    Westpac data shows men have an average KiwiSaver balance 16% higher than women’s, most likely attributable to gender wage gaps and parenting career breaks.

    Therefore the reduction in government contributions to KiwiSaver, and National’s desire to lift the retirement age, matter more to women because statistically they have a longer retirement to fund.

    Budget 2025 came at a cost to many women in New Zealand, and it may yet come at a cost for National.

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

    – ref. NZ Budget 2025: funding growth at the expense of pay equity for women could cost National in the long run – https://theconversation.com/nz-budget-2025-funding-growth-at-the-expense-of-pay-equity-for-women-could-cost-national-in-the-long-run-257225

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Head knocks and ultra-violence: viral games Run It Straight and Power Slap put sports safety back centuries

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Yorke, Lecturer in sport management, Western Sydney University

    runitstraight24/instagram.com, The Conversation, CC BY

    Created in Australia, “Run It Straight” is a new, ultra-violent combat sport.

    Across a 20×4 metre grassed “battlefield,” players charge at full speed toward one another.

    Alternating between carrying the ball (ball runner) and defending (tackler), victory is awarded via knockout (a competitor cannot continue), or a judge’s decision based on an athlete’s dominance during the collisions.

    Despite neuroscientists issuing grave warnings about the brutal sport’s risks, Run It Straight’s viral popularity, including endorsement among high profile athletes, is accelerating.

    A growing scene

    This month, Melbourne hosted the inaugural “RUNIT Championship League” event.

    Footage showed some participants convulsing after their collisions as the winner celebrated, surrounded by children.

    Drawing hundreds of spectators and millions of online views, the full-speed collision challenge is already turning its violence and social media footprint into commercial success abroad, securing interest in the United States.

    The sport held some events in New Zealand this week, but one was was halted by Auckland Council due to safety concerns and failure to secure necessary permits.

    A history of sport and violence

    In ancient times, symbolic cultural displays of power and physical dominance featured in combat sports such as wrestling, boxing, pankration (a mixed martial art combining boxing and wrestling) and even armoured foot races.

    This brutal entertainment is reflected in contemporary collision sports such as the National Rugby League (NRL) and Australian Football League (AFL).

    In recent decades however, the danger of concussion has resulted in most contact sports changing rules and regulations to protect athletes from head injuries.

    Various measures have been implemented to mitigate, eliminate and treat head trauma.

    The Australian government is exerting influence and committing material resources to support athletes living with brain issues such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).



    Read more:
    When does the love of the game outweigh the cost? ABC’s Plum brings rugby league’s concussion crisis to the fore

    Considering this multi-pronged effort to make contact sports safer, the violence of Run It Straight is jarring.

    Why are these new sports so popular?

    With its origins as a social media challenge, Run It Straight is perfect content for short-form social media platforms: an entire competition can be distilled into a 30-second highlight.

    Run It Straight’s accessible and minimalist format is also attractive to fans compared to many collision sports that have complex rules and strategies. This can be a barrier to interest, engagement and commercial returns.

    Run It Straight and other emerging, violent sports such as Power Slap (a fight sport where contestants slap each other so hard they can be knocked unconscious) are simplistic and brutal.

    But athletes in most traditional collision sports use their physical ability and skill to evade contact. Similarly, boxing is not just about strikes to the head, it is punch evasion, physical fitness and point scoring.

    But the visual spectacle and shock of two people running toward one another for an inevitable collision is a form of violence that appeals to an increasing number of sport fans.

    The risks involved

    Run It Straight is a new sport, and to our knowledge there is no empirical peer-reviewed research focusing on it.

    But many neurologists have expressed concerns about its total disregard for scientific evidence showing repeated head trauma damages brain health.

    With Run it Straight appearing to lack the medical resources and infrastructure of professional sports organisations, and with the competition’s expressed intent to have participants collide at high speed, the risk of significant injury is high.

    Power Slap, though, has been the subject of empirical research. A 2024 study reported many of the sport’s combatants showed visible signs of concussion (motor incoordination, slowness to get up and blank and vacant looks during bouts).

    An opportunity for ‘traditional’ sports?

    The rise of Run It Straight and Power Slap creates a unique opportunity for the governing bodies of contact codes such as AFL, NRL and rugby union to highlight what sets them apart.

    Key to this is athlete safety. For years, governing bodies in these codes have invested time and resources to implement concussion management protocols at professional and community levels.

    Currently, the tournament-based format for individual adult participants allows Run It Straight to operate without the broader governance responsibilities of football codes.

    However, it is because of those governance responsibilities that the football codes can amplify their athlete wellbeing credentials to reassure participants and parents who may be nervous about concussion risks.

    Second, the football codes are organised team sports played with multiple players on a team, facilitating skill acquisition, teamwork, mental wellbeing and physical fitness. While there appears to be a degree of camaraderie during Run It Straight events, it is evidently a one-on-one competition.

    Ultimately, the rise and evident popularity of Run It Straight and Power Slap provides a stark reminder there will always be a section of society that is drawn to high-risk behaviours.

    In turn, the football codes should look to highlight the value of balance and their athlete wellbeing credentials.

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

    – ref. Head knocks and ultra-violence: viral games Run It Straight and Power Slap put sports safety back centuries – https://theconversation.com/head-knocks-and-ultra-violence-viral-games-run-it-straight-and-power-slap-put-sports-safety-back-centuries-256473

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Golden Dome: An aerospace engineer explains the proposed nationwide missile defense system

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Iain Boyd, Director of the Center for National Security Initiatives and Professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder

    Posters that President Donald Trump used to announce Golden Dome depict missile defense as a shield. AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

    President Donald Trump announced a plan to build a missile defense system, called the Golden Dome, on May 20, 2025. The system is intended to protect the United States from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space.

    Trump is calling for the current budget to allocate US$25 billion to launch the initiative, which the government projected will cost $175 billion. He said Golden Dome will be fully operational before the end of his term in three years and will provide close to 100% protection.

    The Conversation U.S. asked Iain Boyd, an aerospace engineer and director of the Center for National Security Initiatives at the University of Colorado Boulder, about the Golden Dome plan and the feasibility of Trump’s claims. Boyd receives funding for research unrelated to Golden Dome from defense contractor Lockheed Martin.

    Why does the United States need a missile shield?

    Several countries, including China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, have been developing missiles over the past few years that challenge the United States’ current missile defense systems.

    These weapons include updated ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, and new hypersonic missiles. They have been specifically developed to counter America’s highly advanced missile defense systems such as the Patriot and the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System.

    For example, the new hypersonic missiles are very high speed, operate in a region of the atmosphere where nothing else flies and are maneuverable. All of these aspects combined create a new challenge that requires a new, updated defensive approach.

    Russia has fired hypersonic missiles against Ukraine in the ongoing conflict. China parades its new hypersonic missiles in Tiananmen Square.

    So it’s reasonable to think that, to ensure the protection of its homeland and to aid its allies, the U.S. may need a new missile defense capability.

    Ukrainian forces are using the U.S.-made Patriot missile defense system against Russian ballistic missiles.

    What are the components of a national missile defense system?

    Such a defense system requires a global array of geographically distributed sensors that cover all phases of all missile trajectories.

    First, it is essential for the system to detect the missile threats as early as possible after launch, so some of the sensors must be located close to regions where adversaries may fire them, such as by China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Then, it has to track the missiles along their trajectories as they travel hundreds or thousands of miles.

    These requirements are met by deploying a variety of sensors on a number of different platforms on the ground, at sea, in the air and in space. Interceptors are placed in locations that protect vital U.S. assets and usually aim to engage threats during the middle portion of the trajectory between launch and the terminal dive.

    The U.S. already has a broad array of sensors and interceptors in place around the world and in space primarily to protect the U.S. and its allies from ballistic missiles. The sensors would need to be expanded, including with more space-based sensors, to detect new missiles such as hypersonic missiles. The interceptors would need to be enhanced to enable them to address hypersonic weapons and other missiles and warheads that can maneuver.

    Does this technology exist?

    Intercepting hypersonic missiles specifically involves several steps.

    First, as explained above, a hostile missile must be detected and identified as a threat. Second, the threat must be tracked along all of its trajectory due to the ability of hypersonic missiles to maneuver. Third, an interceptor missile must be able to follow the threat and get close enough to it to disable or destroy it.

    The main new challenge here is the ability to track the hypersonic missile continuously. This requires new types of sensors to detect hypersonic vehicles and new sensor platforms that are able to provide a complete picture of the hypersonic trajectory. As described, Golden Dome would use the sensors in a layered approach in which they are installed on a variety of platforms in multiple domains, including ground, sea, air and space.

    These various platforms would need to have different types of sensors that are specifically designed to track hypersonic threats in different phases of their flight paths. These defensive systems will also be designed to address weapons fired from space. Much of the infrastructure will be multipurpose and able to defend against a variety of missile types.

    In terms of time frame for deployment, it is important to note that Golden Dome will build from the long legacy of existing U.S. missile defense systems. Another important aspect of Golden Dome is that some of the new capabilities have been under active development for years. In some ways, Golden Dome represents the commitment to actually deploy systems for which considerable progress has already been made.

    Is near 100% protection a realistic claim?

    Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system has been described as the most effective system of its kind anywhere in the world.

    But even Iron Dome is not 100% effective, and it has also been overwhelmed on occasion by Hamas and others who fire very large numbers of inexpensive missiles and rockets at it. So it is unlikely that any missile defense system will ever provide 100% protection.

    The more important goal here is to achieve deterrence, similar to the stalemate in the Cold War with the Soviet Union that was based on nuclear weapons. All of the new weapons that Golden Dome will defend against are very expensive. The U.S. is trying to change the calculus in an opponent’s thinking to the point where they will consider it not worth shooting their precious high-value missiles at the U.S. when they know there is a high probability of them not reaching their targets.

    CBS News covered President Donald Trump’s announcement.

    Is three years a feasible time frame?

    That seems to me like a very aggressive timeline, but with multiple countries now operating hypersonic missiles, there is a real sense of urgency.

    Existing missile defense systems on the ground, at sea and in the air can be expanded to include new, more capable sensors. Satellite systems are beginning to be put in place for the space layer. Sensors have been developed to track the new missile threats.

    Putting all of this highly complex system together, however, is likely to take more than three years. At the same time, if the U.S. fully commits to Golden Dome, a significant amount of progress can be made in this time.

    What does the president’s funding request tell you?

    President Trump is requesting a total budget for all defense spending of about $1 trillion in 2026. So, $25 billion to launch Golden Dome would represent only 2.5% of the total requested defense budget.

    Of course, that is still a lot of money, and a lot of other programs will need to be terminated to make it possible. But it is certainly financially achievable.

    How will Golden Dome differ from Iron Dome?

    Similar to Iron Dome, Golden Dome will consist of sensors and interceptor missiles but will be deployed over a much wider geographical region and for defense against a broader variety of threats in comparison with Iron Dome.

    A second-generation Golden Dome system in the future would likely use directed energy weapons such as high-energy lasers and high-power microwaves to destroy missiles. This approach would significantly increase the number of shots that defenders can take against ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles.

    Iain Boyd receives funding from the U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed-Martin Corporation, a defense contractor that sells missile defense systems and could potentially benefit from the implementation of Golden Dome.

    – ref. Golden Dome: An aerospace engineer explains the proposed nationwide missile defense system – https://theconversation.com/golden-dome-an-aerospace-engineer-explains-the-proposed-nationwide-missile-defense-system-257408

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Deaf President Now! traces the powerful uprising that led to Deaf rights in the US – now again under threat

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma King, ARC DECRA Fellow in Screen Studies, Senior Lecturer in French Studies, Australian National University

    Archival footage shows Tim Rarus, Greg Hlibok, Bridgetta Bourne-Firl and Jerry Covell, in Apple TV+ Deaf President Now! Apple TV+

    In March 1988, students of the world’s only Deaf university started a revolution that made national news. Now, the first film to document this historic uprising is screening on Apple TV+.

    At the same time, American universities are grappling with the consequences of President Donald Trump’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion.

    Gallaudet, home of the Deaf Rights movement

    By 1988, Washington DC’s Gallaudet University had been educating Deaf students in American Sign Language (ASL) for 124 years. But it had never had a Deaf president.

    For the first time, two Deaf candidates were in the running for the top job. One was Gallaudet’s own Irving King Jordan. The second was Harvey Corson of the American School for the Deaf.

    The third was Elisabeth Zinser, a hearing woman from the University of North Carolina Greensboro. She had no experience of Deaf community or knowledge of ASL.

    As the hearing board of trustees met to choose a new leader, the student body waited with bated breath. Self-determination in higher education – by the Deaf, for the Deaf – was finally a possibility. But once again the board chose a hearing person, Zinser.

    When chair Jane Spilman was questioned about the choice, she replied, “Deaf people are not ready to function in a hearing world.”

    Incensed, Gallaudet students barricaded the campus, gave impassioned media interviews and took to marching. First they marched around the university – Zinser effigies burning – and then all the way to the Capitol.

    The Deaf President Now protest became national news, leading to the resignations of Zinser and Spilman, and the appointment of Jordan as president. It also helped propel the Disability Rights Movement, contributed to the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and inspired Deaf Pride movements around the world.

    Jane Bassett Spilman and Elisabeth Zinser resigned as a result of the Deaf President Now movement.
    Apple TV+

    Timely, vital and imperfect

    The 2025 documentary Deaf President Now! opens with footage of a political act: not from the 1988 protests, but from the present day, as the movement’s original student leaders – Bridgetta Bourne, Jerry Covell, Greg Hlibok and Tim Rarus – advise on their interview setups.

    One alerts the crew they can’t see the interpreter. Another explains how much signing space they need in the frame. A third asks, joking but incisive, “What’s the microphone for?”

    These aren’t throwaway moments; they show how inclusion and authenticity are only possible when Deaf people are in control of their own stories.

    The film excels in exposing the paternalistic attitude and tightly-held hearing power that has long shaped Deaf education.

    The film’s most powerful moments are when it contrasts the board’s dismissive rhetoric against the eloquent, impassioned arguments of the Deaf student body. Through intimate interviews and carefully curated archival footage, the documentary dismantles prevailing presumption that Deaf individuals need hearing oversight to succeed.

    At the same time, the film embodies a paradox that mirrors its subject matter, as it is co-directed by hearing filmmaker Davis Guggenheim and Deaf director Nyle DiMarco.

    DiMarco has been active in the screen industry for more than a decade, in acting roles and as a producer on Netflix hits Deaf U (2020) and Audible (2021). Though his involvement represents progress, Guggenheim’s raises an uncomfortable question: when will Deaf filmmakers fully own their narratives and be entrusted to lead projects?

    Nyle DiMarco and Davis Guggenheim co-directed the documentary, with interviews from several of the movement’s leading figures.
    Apple TV+

    The collaboration reflects how stories celebrating Deaf empowerment often require hearing endorsement to reach a mainstream audience. The film’s distribution on Apple TV+ offers unprecedented visibility, but comes through channels controlled by hearing decision-makers.

    This production context reminds us true representation extends beyond what appears onscreen, to who controls the storytelling process — a revolution unfinished in Deaf cinema.

    Using film for Deaf empowerment

    The industry may remain exclusive, but the camera itself can be a tool for Deaf power. Throughout history, Deaf individuals have harnessed film as a means of resistance.

    The extensive archival footage in Deaf President Now! shows how, by 1988, film was already being used by the Deaf community as a form of advocacy. Through the blending of this footage with present-day interviews in ASL, we witness Deaf individuals taking ownership of their history and recounting it in their authentic language form.

    The documentary also mirrors how media attention was integral to spreading the protest’s message back in 1988. This culminated in a national broadcast of a live debate between Zinser and Greg Hlibok, the then student body president.

    To understand the film’s profound importance for the Deaf community, we must recognise how sign languages have historically been undocumented in their true form, with speech and writing considered superior modes of communication.

    Deaf culture, language and community are powerful forces of resistance that have continually defied mainstream oppression.

    Trump: a step back for the movement

    While the film was long overdue, its arrival now is eerily relevant. Trump’s push for conservative policies – part of what he calls “Project 2025” – seeks to dismantle programs and funding that serve minority students, including disability groups.

    Many of the protections in the Americans with Disabilities Act are under threat as a result, including fundamental rights to sign language and interpreting access in higher education and beyond.

    According to the New York Times, hundreds of terms including “accessibility”, “disability”, “minority” and “inequality” are being limited or outright removed from official government materials. In some cases, grant proposals and contracts have been automatically flagged for including “woke” terminology.

    The spirit of the Deaf President Now! resistance has never been more vital.

    But if Deaf history has taught us anything, it’s that the Deaf community forges a deep sense of pride and connection in the face of such pressures. And films like Deaf President Now! show us how integral film is to this resistance.

    Gemma King receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

    – ref. Deaf President Now! traces the powerful uprising that led to Deaf rights in the US – now again under threat – https://theconversation.com/deaf-president-now-traces-the-powerful-uprising-that-led-to-deaf-rights-in-the-us-now-again-under-threat-257233

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: KiwiSaver at a crossroads: budget another missed opportunity to fix NZ’s underperforming retirement scheme

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron Gilbert, Professor of Finance, Auckland University of Technology

    Lynn Grieveson/Getty Images

    When KiwiSaver was introduced in 2007 it was built on a stark reality: New Zealand Super alone will not be enough for most people to retire with dignity.

    As the population ages and the cost of superannuation continues to climb, the gap between what the state provides and what retirees actually need is only going to grow. KiwiSaver was designed to bridge that gap – to give New Zealanders a fighting chance at financial independence in retirement.

    But changes to KiwiSaver laid out in this year’s budget undermine what was already an underperforming scheme.

    Despite 17 years of operation, KiwiSaver balances remain shockingly low. As of mid-2024, the average sits around NZ$37,000. That’s barely enough for a couple of years’ worth of modest top-ups, let alone funding a comfortable retirement.

    For many nearing retirement, balances are even lower. And about 40% of members aren’t actively contributing. That includes people on contribution holidays, in irregular work, or who opted out altogether. Many accounts are effectively dormant “ghost accounts” created by auto-enrolment and never activated.

    Let’s be blunt: a retirement savings scheme that doesn’t result in meaningful savings for the majority of its members isn’t working.

    The 2025 Budget from the National Party, ACT and NZ First, included changes to the KiwiSaver scheme.
    Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    Small cuts, big consequences

    KiwiSaver’s design isn’t its only problem. Political decisions have steadily chipped away at the scheme’s effectiveness. Every tweak and cut might seem minor on its own. But together they’ve eroded the core engine of the scheme: compounding contributions over time.

    Take the $1,000 kick-start payment from the state, scrapped in 2015. Left invested in a growth fund for 40 years, that single payment could have grown to over $8,000.

    Or look at the member tax credit – an annual payment made by the government to eligible members. The reduction from $1,042 to $521.43 might seem modest, but over a working life, that change alone could shave more than $70,000 off your KiwiSaver balance. This year’s budget has cut it further to $260.72.

    Then there’s the tax on employer contributions – the amount paid into KiwiSaver by employers. For someone earning $80,000 a year, that tax can reduce total contributions by around 1% of salary annually. Over 40 years, that means nearly $100,000 less at retirement.

    These aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet. They’re the difference between retiring with options and retiring with anxiety. The $200,000 that past policy changes have stripped from the average KiwiSaver balance could have provided an extra $170 a week in retirement – enough to cover basics like food, power or transport.

    By eroding those balances now, we’re not saving money. We’re simply passing the bill to future governments and taxpayers who will have to pick up the slack.

    The worst time to weaken saving

    There’s never a good time to undermine a long-term savings scheme, but doing it during a cost-of-living crisis is especially reckless. People are already struggling to keep up with everyday expenses. Contributions to KiwiSaver – despite their long-term benefits – are one of the first things households cut when budgets are tight.

    If people start to believe KiwiSaver won’t be there for them – or that it’s not worth the effort – they’ll opt out or reduce contributions. And the scheme, already struggling with engagement, will lose even more ground.

    Which brings us to the current budget.

    The changes to the member tax credit will undermine the core purpose of KiwiSaver, reducing the amount people will retire with by another $35,000 for someone investing for 40 years in a growth fund.

    Income-testing the member tax credit, coming into effect on July 1 this year, is pitched as targeting support where it’s needed. But that assumes income is a good proxy for need. It isn’t. Plenty of people have high incomes now but low KiwiSaver balances due to career gaps, home purchases or starting late.

    If we want to better target support, base it on balances, not income. That would help those with low savings regardless of their current salary – and encourage rebuilding after big life expenses, such as buying a first home.

    Raising the minimum contribution rate from 3% to 4% of gross salary sounds promising. Nudging people into saving more is smart policy – in theory. Plus requiring higher employer contributions is a welcome benefit.

    But with households stretched thin, there’s a real risk people will just cease contributing at all. The danger is we end up with a headline policy that looks bold but delivers little – or worse, backfires.

    The bottom line

    The bigger issue? These are tweaks around the edges. They don’t address the fundamental problem: KiwiSaver is not set up to deliver retirement security at scale.

    Plenty of experts have put forward good ideas to improve it. But right now, the urgent priority isn’t invention – it’s protection. Every time we reduce incentives, chip away at contributions or confuse the message, we undermine the very idea that long-term saving is worth it.

    A retirement savings scheme only works if people trust it. That means policy stability. That means recognising KiwiSaver not as a cost, but as a commitment – a promise that if you put money aside during your working life, the system will have your back when you stop.

    KiwiSaver is at a crossroads. It can continue its slow drift into irrelevance –eroded by short-term thinking and piecemeal reform. Or it can be treated as the critical infrastructure it is: a tool for ensuring financial independence in retirement and relieving future pressure on the public purse.

    Budget decisions should honour KiwiSaver’s original promise. We owe future retirees – and future taxpayers – nothing less.

    Aaron Gilbert 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. KiwiSaver at a crossroads: budget another missed opportunity to fix NZ’s underperforming retirement scheme – https://theconversation.com/kiwisaver-at-a-crossroads-budget-another-missed-opportunity-to-fix-nzs-underperforming-retirement-scheme-257341

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Corroboree 2000, 25 years on: the march for Indigenous reconciliation has left a complicated legacy

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heidi Norman, Professor of Aboriginal political history, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, Convenor: Indigenous Land & Justice Research Group, UNSW Sydney

    First Nations people please be advised this article speaks of racially discriminating moments in history, including the distress and death of First Nations people.

    On a cold day 25 years ago, a bitter wind swept up from the south, pushing against an endless throng of people crossing one of Australia’s most famous landmarks.

    Some 250,000 people were walking across Sydney Harbour Bridge in support of Indigenous reconciliation. It was an event called Corroboree 2000.

    It took more than six hours for the mass of people to make their way from north to south, into the city. Across the nation, in small towns and in the capital cities, bridge walks symbolised overcoming a difficult past and coming together.

    But Australia’s relationship with First Nations people in the years since has been sometimes tumultuous, occasionally optimistic and often vexed. What legacy did the event leave?

    A ‘decade of reconciliation’?

    A “Decade of Reconciliation” started with the unanimous passage of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act through the federal parliament in 1991. “Reconciliation” was to be achieved between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by the centenary of Federation in 2001.

    The act made a national commitment for the federal government to address both “Aboriginal disadvantage and aspirations”.

    It didn’t, however, specify what reconciliation was or what a reconciled nation would look like. The 2001 deadline would come and go without any way of knowing if it had been achieved.

    The amorphous nature of the concept likely contributed to the widespread political support for reconciliation. But whether it meant addressing Indigenous rights, or disadvantage, or both, was often decided down political party lines.

    Some First Nations activists were unequivocal in their criticism of reconciliation. It was widely perceived as a poor substitute for Bob Hawke’s 1984 promise of national land rights, and later, Treaty.

    The late Uncle Chicka Dixon renamed the movement “ReCONsillynation”. The “con” was the call to “walk together” as an alternative to Treaty and land rights.

    Instead, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was established in 1991. Its approach to reconciliation was largely about building knowledge and understanding among non-Indigenous Australians about Australian Indigenous lives, experience and history. This was seen as essential to advancing justice.

    Changing hearts and minds

    For more than a decade, the council worked to achieve its vision, recruiting thousands of participants to the cause. It produced educational materials to guide learning about First Peoples histories and cultures. It also promoted reconciliation activities in the community.

    Community-led reconciliation activities proliferated quickly. Some of these continue today, helping establish a foundation for truth-telling.

    Huge historical events were unfolding alongside this work. In 1992, the Mabo decision in the High Court ruled Australia was not terra nullius (land belonging to nobody) when it was claimed by Britain in 1770. This led to native title laws, which have made it possible for some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to claim ownership of their traditional lands.

    In 1997, the Bringing Them Home report highlighted the trauma caused to generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait children across Australia by removing them from their families. They are known as the Stolen Generations.

    The report recommended all Australian governments apologise to Indigenous people for their involvement in the policies and practices of forcible child removal.

    By 1999, all states and territory governments had apologised. The federal government had not.

    A contested history

    These seismic shifts in public conversation inevitably came to feature in federal politics.

    In the 1996 election, the two leaders – Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating and Liberal leader John Howard – outlined very different political visions based on opposing approaches to Australian history.

    While Keating was in office, he combined two causes – native title and the republic – hoping they would help generate a new story of the nation’s foundation.

    He sought to replace the positive, comforting and Anglo-centric view of Australian history. He highlighted the impact of colonisation on Aboriginal people and cast doubt on the morality of British occupation.

    Howard largely framed his history in opposition to Keating’s. Whereas Keating’s history dwelled on identifiable historical wrongs, Howard famously said Australians should “feel comfortable and relaxed about their history”.

    For Howard, there was much to be proud of in the story of the nation’s past. He accused the Labor party of peddling “the rhetoric of apology and shame”, or what came to be known as the “black armband” view of the past.

    Despite the recommendation of the Bringing Them Home report, Howard didn’t apologise to Indigenous people. He championed “practical outcomes” instead of “symbolism”, although ultimately failed to deliver either.

    A historic culmination

    With all these debates brewing throughout the 1990s, Australians used the new millennium to make their own large, symbolic gesture.

    Corroboree 2000 was held over two days in May. At the first event held on May 27, Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders met at the Sydney Opera House. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation presented non-Indigenous leaders with two documents: the Australian Declaration Towards Reconciliation and the Roadmap for Reconciliation.

    All the leaders who took part left their handprints on a canvas to show their support.

    But in the intervening years, the shape of reconciliation and what Indigenous people could expect from it changed.

    Reflecting the Howard government’s emphasis on practical reconciliation, the council’s final report emphasised that “overcoming disadvantage is central to the reconciliation process”. The original brief for reconciliation to also address “Aboriginal aspirations” was forgotten.

    Howard gave a speech at the event and expressed “regret” for the past treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but he did not apologise. This left many in the crowd unhappy.

    The apology would eventually come in 2008 from Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

    Where are we now?

    In his recent election victory speech, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasised national unity. He again placed reconciliation at the forefront of the Australian government’s Indigenous affairs agenda, saying:

    we will be a government that supports reconciliation with First Nations people, because we will be a stronger nation when we close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

    It was a far cry from his 2022 victory speech when he promised the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

    In the aftermath of the Voice referendum, the Albanese government says it is focusing on First Nations economic independence and empowerment, along with continuing to “Close the Gap” in experiences of disadvantage.

    So 25 years on from the bridge walk, reconciliation remains a feature of the government’s response to First Peoples’ calls for recognition and justice.

    But reconciliation can be seen as a safe harbour to merely rebuild consensus, when more ambitious Indigenous affairs agendas stall or fail.

    Heidi Norman receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Anne Maree Payne has previously received research funding from Reconciliation Australia.

    – ref. Corroboree 2000, 25 years on: the march for Indigenous reconciliation has left a complicated legacy – https://theconversation.com/corroboree-2000-25-years-on-the-march-for-indigenous-reconciliation-has-left-a-complicated-legacy-252805

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why Donald Trump has put Asia on the precipice of a nuclear arms race

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Langford, Executive Director, Security & Defence PLuS and Professor, UNSW Sydney

    For the past 75 years, America’s nuclear umbrella has been the keystone that has kept East Asia’s great‑power rivalries from turning atomic.

    President Donald Trump’s second‑term “strategic reset” now threatens to crack that arch.

    By pressuring allies to shoulder more of the defence burden, hinting that US forces might walk if the cheques do not clear and flirting with a return to nuclear testing, Washington is signalling that its once‑ironclad nuclear guarantee is, at best, negotiable.

    In Seoul, Tokyo and even Taipei, a once-unthinkable idea — building nuclear weapons — has begun to look disturbingly pragmatic.

    Nuclear umbrella starting to fray

    Extended deterrence is the promise the United States will use its own nuclear weapons, if necessary, to repel an attack on an ally.

    The logic is brutally simple: if North Korea contemplates a strike on South Korea, it must fear an American retaliatory strike, as well.

    The pledge allows allies to forgo their own bombs, curbing nuclear proliferation while reinforcing US influence.

    The idea dates to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “New Look” military strategy, which relied on the threat of “massive retaliation” against the Soviet Union to defend Europe and Asia at a discount: fewer troops, more warheads.

    John F. Kennedy replaced that hair‑trigger doctrine with a “flexible response” defence strategy. This widened the spectrum of options to respond to potential Soviet attacks, but kept the nuclear backstop in place.

    By the 1990s, the umbrella seemed almost ornamental. Russia’s nuclear arsenal had rusted, China was keeping to a “minimal deterrent” strategy (maintaining a small stockpile of weapons), and US supremacy looked overwhelming.

    In 2020, then-President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review reaffirmed the umbrella guarantee, though Obama had voiced aspirations for the long‑term abolition of nuclear weapons.

    Barack Obama’s 2009 speech advocating nuclear disarmament in Prague.

    The Biden administration then embraced a new term – “integrated deterrence”, which fused cyber, space and economic tools with nuclear forces to deter potential foes.

    In recent years, however, North Korea’s sprint towards intercontinental ballistic missiles and the modernisation and expansion of China’s nuclear arsenal began testing the faith of US allies.

    Trump has now turbo‑charged those doubts. He has mused that his “strategic reset” ties protection to payment. If NATO’s Article 5 (which obliges members to come to each other’s defence) is “conditional” on US allies paying their fair share, why would Asia be different?

    Reports the White House has weighed a resumption of underground nuclear tests – and, under the Biden administration, even a more extensive arsenal – have rattled non‑proliferation diplomats.

    A Politico analysis bluntly warns that sustaining global “extended deterrence” in two parts of the world (Europe and Asia) may be beyond Trump’s patience — or pocketbook.

    A regional nuclear arms race

    Allies are taking note. Last month, an Institute for Strategic Studies survey found officials in Europe and Asia openly questioning whether an American president would risk San Francisco to save Seoul.

    In South Korea, public backing for a bomb now tops 70%.

    Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party is, for the first time since 1945, considering a “nuclear sharing” arrangement with the US. Some former defence officials have even called for a debate on nuclear weapons themselves.

    Taiwan’s legislators — long muzzled on the subject — whisper about a “porcupine” deterrent based on asymmetrical warfare and a modest nuclear capability.

    If one domino tips, several could follow. A South Korean nuclear weapon program would almost certainly spur Japan to act. That, in turn, would harden China’s strategic outlook, inviting a regional arms race and shredding the fragile Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty.

    The respected international relations journal Foreign Policy has already dubbed Trump’s approach “a nuclear Pandora’s box.”

    The danger is not just about more warheads, but also the shorter decision times to use them.

    Three or four nuclear actors crammed into the world’s busiest sea lanes — with hypersonic missiles and AI‑driven, early‑warning systems — create hair‑trigger instability. One misread radar blip over the East China Sea could end in catastrophe.

    What does this mean for Australia?

    Australia, too, has long relied on the US umbrella without demanding an explicit nuclear clause in the ANZUS treaty.

    The AUKUS submarine pact with the US and UK deepens technological knowledge sharing, but does not deliver an Australian bomb. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese insists the deal is about “deterrence, not offence,” yet the debate over funding nuclear-powered submarines exposes how tightly Australian strategy is lashed to American political will.

    A regional cascade of nuclear proliferation would confront Australia with agonising choices. Should it cling to the shrinking US umbrella, invest in a missile defence shield, or contemplate its own nuclear deterrent? Any such move towards its own weapon would collide with decades of proud non‑proliferation diplomacy and risk alienating Southeast Asian neighbours.

    More likely, Canberra will double down on alliance management — lobbying Washington to clarify its commitments, urging Seoul and Tokyo to stay the non‑nuclear course, and expanding regional defence exercises that make American resolve visible.

    In a neighbourhood bristling with new warheads, middle powers that remain non‑nuclear will need thicker conventional shields and sharper diplomatic tools.

    This means hardening Australia’s northern bases against a potential attack, accelerating its long‑range strike programs, and funding diplomatic initiatives that keep the Non-Proliferation Treaty alive.

    The Trump administration’s transactional posture risks broadcasting a deficit of will precisely when East Asian security hangs in the balance. If Washington allows confidence in extended deterrence to erode, history will not stand still; it will split the atom again, this time in Seoul, Tokyo or beyond.

    Australia has every incentive to prod its great power ally back toward strategic steadiness. The alternative is a region where the umbrellas proliferate — and, sooner or later, fail.

    Ian Langford is affiliated with the University of New South Wales.

    – ref. Why Donald Trump has put Asia on the precipice of a nuclear arms race – https://theconversation.com/why-donald-trump-has-put-asia-on-the-precipice-of-a-nuclear-arms-race-256577

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What’s the difference between skim milk and light milk?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Margaret Murray, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Swinburne University of Technology

    bodnar.photo/Shutterstock

    If you’re browsing the supermarket fridge for reduced-fat milk, it’s easy to be confused by the many different types.

    You can find options labelled skim, skimmed, skinny, no fat, extra light, lite, light, low fat, reduced fat, semi skim and HiLo (high calcium, low fat).

    So what’s the difference between two of these common milks – skim milk and light milk? How are they made? And which one’s healthier?

    What do they contain?

    Skim milk

    In Australia and New Zealand, skim milk is defined as milk that contains no more than 1.5% milk fat and has at least 3% protein. On the nutrition information panel this looks like less than 1.5 grams of fat and at least 3g protein per 100 millilitres of milk.

    But the fat content of skim milk can be as low as 0.1% or 0.1g per 100mL.

    Light milk

    Light milk is sometimes spelled “lite” but they’re essentially the same thing.

    While light milk is not specifically defined in Australia and New Zealand, the term “light” is defined for food generally. If we apply the rules to milk, we can say light milk must contain no more than 2.4% fat (2.4g fat per 100mL).

    In other words, light milk contains more fat than skim milk.

    You can find the fat content by reading the “total fat per 100mL” on the label’s nutrition information panel.

    How about other nutrients?

    The main nutritional difference between skim milk and light milk, apart from the fat content, is the energy content.

    Skim milk provides about 150 kilojoules of energy per 100mL whereas light milk provides about 220kJ per 100mL.

    Any milk sold as cow’s milk must contain at least 3% protein (3g protein per 100mL of milk). That includes skim or light milk. So there’s typically not much difference there.

    Likewise, the calcium content doesn’t differ much between skim milk and light milk. It is typically about 114 milligrams to 120mg per 100mL.

    You can check these and other details on the label’s nutrition information panel.

    How are they made?

    Skim milk and light milk are not made by watering down full-cream milk.

    Instead, full-cream milk is spun at high speeds in a device called a centrifuge. This causes the fat to separate and be removed, leaving behind milk containing less fat.

    Here’s how fat is removed to produce skim and light milk.

    Who should be drinking what?

    Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend we drink mostly reduced-fat milk – that is, milk containing no more than 2.4g fat per 100mL. Skim milk and light milk are both included in that category.

    The exception is for children under two years old, who are recommended full-cream milk to meet their growing needs.

    The reason our current guidelines recommend reduced-fat milk is that, since the 1970s, reduced-fat milk has been thought to help with reducing body weight and reducing the risk of heart disease. That’s because of its lower content of saturated fat and energy (kilojoules/calories) than full cream milk.

    However, more recent evidence has shown drinking full-cream milk is not associated with weight gain or health risks. In fact, eating or drinking dairy products of any type may help reduce the risk of obesity and other metabolic disorders (such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes), especially in children and adolescents.

    The science in this area continues to evolve. So the debate around whether there are health benefits to choosing reduced-fat milk over full cream milk is ongoing.

    Whether or not there any individual health benefits from choosing skim milk or light milk over full cream will vary depending on your current health status and broader dietary habits.

    For personalised health and dietary advice, speak to a health professional.

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

    – ref. What’s the difference between skim milk and light milk? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-skim-milk-and-light-milk-255608

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Russia is labelling Oscar Jenkins a ‘mercenary’, not a prisoner of war. What’s the difference – and why does this matter?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

    Oscar Jenkins, a 33-year-old former teacher from Melbourne, was one of many foreigners who responded to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s call in 2022 for volunteers to join Ukraine’s armed forces to help repel Russia’s invasion.

    In early 2024, Jenkins joined Ukraine’s International Legion of Territorial Defence, which has attracted some 20,000 fighters from 50 countries since the war began. He had no previous military experience, but this wasn’t a requirement to join.

    In December, Jenkins was captured by Russian forces in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine and accused of serving as a “mercenary” in Ukraine’s 66th Mechanised Brigade’s 402nd Rifle Battalion. He was tried in a Russian court and sentenced on May 16 to 13 years imprisonment in a maximum-security penal colony.

    When a foreigner volunteers to fight in a war, their legal status under international law can be complicated.

    Are they a soldier with the full authorisation of one of the warring parties to engage in hostilities? Or are they an illegal mercenary?

    And what happens if they are captured?

    Why legal status matters

    The answers to these questions have very real importance to the thousands of foreigners who have joined Ukraine’s International Legion since 2022.

    Russian authorities have classified all of Ukraine’s foreigner fighters as “mercenaries”. They’ve used this label to deny foreign fighters the status of “prisoner of war” (POW), with the requisite protections that come along with that under international humanitarian law.

    While foreigners are permitted under international law to enlist in the armed forces of a state for political or moral reasons, mercenaries have historically been outlawed due to their sole motivation being financial gain.

    International humanitarian law (the rules that govern war) define mercenaries as individuals who are not nationals or residents of a state engaged in war and are recruited to fight outside that state’s official armed forces.

    They are motivated solely by private gain (like money or promises of reward), often well in excess of what the traditional armed forces are paid. Mercenaries are essentially professional soldiers who sell their services to a state without any real ties to that country.

    Once a fighter is classified as a “mercenary”, they lose all the legal protections that are traditionally afforded lawful combatants.

    This includes prisoner of war status if they are captured and immunity from prosecution for fighting in a conflict. Prisoners of war are also entitled to humane treatment and access to food and medical care. And they cannot be subjected to sham trials or torture.

    According to my research, many of the foreign nationals who joined the International Legion were motivated by a desire to defend Ukraine against Russia’s aggression. They were sworn into Ukraine’s armed forces and paid the same as a Ukrainian soldier of equal rank.

    Once enlisted in the armed forces, they were immediately exempt from “mercenary” status, irrespective of their motivation for joining.

    As such, these foreign fighters should be entitled to the full range of protections guaranteed to members of Ukraine’s armed forces under the Geneva Conventions.

    Labelling lawful foreign members of the Ukrainian armed forces as “mercenaries”, and denying them their protections, is an abuse of international law.

    How can Australia protect its nationals?

    If an Australian enlists in Ukraine’s armed forces and is captured by Russian forces, there is a limited toolkit the Australian government can use to help him or her. However, it is not powerless.

    Through its embassy in Moscow, Australia can request access to detainees to assess their welfare while in prison. Russia can, however, decline this access. Details of a detainee’s capture may also be withheld.

    Australia can also apply diplomatic pressure to ensure humane treatment of prisoners and their full POW rights.

    This can be done by working with international bodies, such as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention or organisations like the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), which can request access to detainees.

    It appears the government is already doing some of these things. According to Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the government has been working with Ukraine and the ICRC to advocate for Jenkins’ welfare and release, and providing consular support to Jenkins’ family.

    Australia also has an obligation to warn its citizens they will likely face severe consequences if they travel to Ukraine to fight and are captured by Russian forces, given Russia’s misuse of the “mercenary” label.

    Through back-channel negotiations, Australia could also push Ukraine or its allies to include Australians being held by Russia in future prisoner swaps.

    In January of this year, Ukraine and Russia carried out such an exchange of 470 prisoners from both nations. And in talks last week in Turkey, both sides agreed to release another 1,000 prisoners on each side.

    Such exchanges have involved foreign fighters in the past. In 2022, 10 foreign citizens were included in a prisoner swap, including five Britons, two Americans, a Croatian, a Swede and a Moroccan. Several of them had been convicted of being mercenaries and sentenced to death after a Russian sham trial.

    There is no guarantee Jenkins would qualify for such an exchange, however, if Russia continues to classify him as a mercenary.

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

    – ref. Russia is labelling Oscar Jenkins a ‘mercenary’, not a prisoner of war. What’s the difference – and why does this matter? – https://theconversation.com/russia-is-labelling-oscar-jenkins-a-mercenary-not-a-prisoner-of-war-whats-the-difference-and-why-does-this-matter-256996

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Semicolons are becoming increasingly rare; their disappearance should be resisted

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Roslyn Petelin, Honorary Associate Professor in Writing, The University of Queensland

    Tung Cheung/Shutterstock

    A recent study has found a 50% decline in the use of semicolons over the last two decades. The decline accelerates a longterm trend:

    In 1781, British literature featured a semicolon roughly every 90 words; by 2000, it had fallen to one every 205 words. Today, there’s just one semicolon for every 390 words.

    Further research reported that 67% of British students never or rarely use a semicolon; more than 50% did not know how to use it. Just 11% of respondents described themselves as frequent users.

    These findings may not be definitive. According to the Guardian, the Google Books Ngram Viewer database, which surveys novels and nonfiction, indicates that

    semicolon use in English rose by 388% between 1800 and 2006, before falling by 45% over the next 11 years. In 2017, however, it started a gradual recovery, with a 27% rise by 2022.

    Yet when you put the punctuation mark itself into the database, rather than the word “semicolon”, you get a quite different result – one that looks very much like a steady decline.

    Virulent detractors

    The semicolon first appeared in 1494, so it has been around for a long time. So have arguments about it.

    Its dectractors can be quite virulent. It is sometimes taken as a sign of affected elitism. Adrian Mole, the pretentious schoolboy protagonist of Sue Townsend’s popular novels, says snobbishly of Barry Kent, the skinhead bully at his school: “He wouldn’t know what a semicolon was if it fell into his beer.” Kurt Vonnegut (whose novels are not entirely free of semicolons) said semicolons represented “absolutely nothing” and using them just showed that you “went to college”.

    Kurt Vonnegut, antagonist of the semicolon.
    Bernard Gotfryd / Adam Cuerden, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Other writers have expressed pure animosity. American journalist James Kilpatrick denounced the semicolon “girly”, “odious”, and the “most pusillanimous, sissified utterly useless mark of punctuation ever invented”.

    The utility of this much maligned punctuation mark in contemporary prose has been called into question. British author Ben McIntyre has claimed Stephen King “wouldn’t be seen dead in a ditch with a semicolon”.

    He obviously hasn’t read page 32 of King’s wonderful book On Writing, where King uses semicolons in three sentences in a row.

    Impeccable balance

    Before I defend the semicolon, it is worth clarifying what it actually does. Its two uses are as follows:

    1) it separates independent clauses, but establishes a relation between them. It suggests that the statements are too closely connected to stand as separate sentences. For example: “Speech is silver; silence is golden.”

    2) it can be used to clarify a complicated list. For example: “Remember to check your grammar, especially agreement of subjects and verbs; your spelling, especially of tricky words such as ‘liaison’; and your punctuation, especially your use of the apostrophe.”

    Semicolons have long played a prominent role in classic literature. Journalist Amelia Hill notes that Virginia Woolf relies heavily on semicolons in her meditation on time, Mrs Dalloway. The novel includes more than 1000 of them, often used in unorthodox ways, to capture the flow of its protagonist’s thoughts.

    Virginia Woolf, semicolon enthusiast.
    Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Other supporters of the semicolon include Salman Rushdie, John Updike, Donna Tartt, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens and Jane Austen. Novelist Philip Hensher has celebrated the semicolon as “a cherished tool, elegant and rational.” In 1953, theatre critic Kenneth Tynan called it “the prize-winning supporting crutch of English prose”.

    In his essay Semicolons: A Love Story, Ben Dolnick refers to William James’s deft use of semicolons to pile on the clauses. He claims this is like saying to a reader, who is already holding one bag of groceries, “Here, I know it’s a lot, but can you take another?”

    “The image of the grocery bags,” observed Mary Norris, a highly respected copyeditor at the New Yorker, “reinforces the idea that semicolons are all about balance.” Harvard professor Louis Menand has praised as “impeccable” the balancing semicolon on a public service placard (allegedly amended by hand) that exhorted subway riders not to leave their newspapers behind on the train: “Please put it in a trash can; that’s good news for everyone.”

    The poet Lewis Thomas beautifully captures the elegance of a well-used semicolon in his essay Notes on Punctuation:

    The semicolon tells you there is still some question about the preceding full sentence; something needs to be added. It is almost always a greater pleasure to come across a semicolon than a full stop. The full stop tells you that is that; if you didn’t get all the meaning you wanted or expected, you got all the writer intended to parcel out and now you have to move along. But with a semicolon there you get a pleasant little feeling of expectancy; there is more to come; read on; it will get clearer.

    As Australian novelist David Malouf has argued, the semicolon still has a future, and an important function, in nuanced imaginative prose:

    I tend to write longer sentences and use the semicolon so as not to have to break the longer sentences into shorter ones that would suggest things are not connected that I want people to see as connected. Short sentences make for fast reading; often you want slow reading.

    We cannot do without the semicolon. The Apostrophe Protection Society is going along very strongly. I would be more than happy to join a Semicolon Supporting Society.

    Roslyn Petelin 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. Semicolons are becoming increasingly rare; their disappearance should be resisted – https://theconversation.com/semicolons-are-becoming-increasingly-rare-their-disappearance-should-be-resisted-257019

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why do I procrastinate? And can I do anything about it?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Catherine Houlihan, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

    Dima Berlin/Shutterstock

    Can you only start a boring admin task once your house is clean? Do you leave the trickiest emails to the end of the day?

    Delaying a goal or task – usually to do something less important instead – is known as procrastination and it affects many of us. Most people report procrastinating some of the time, but for others it can be chronic.

    While procrastination is common, it can be frustrating and lead to feelings of shame, guilt and anxiety.

    Here’s why you might be avoiding that task – and five steps to get on top of it.

    Am I procrastinating?

    You might find yourself putting off starting something, abandoning it before it’s finished or leaving it to the very last minute.

    Thoughts such as “I can catch up later” or “I’ll turn it in late” can be telltale signs of procrastination. Maybe you’ve Googled “Why do I procrastinate?” while procrastinating and have come across this article.

    Other times, you might not even be aware you’re doing it. Perhaps you look up and realise you’ve been scrolling online shopping and kitten videos for the past hour, instead of doing your assignment.

    Procrastination is not a character flaw, and it doesn’t mean you’re lazy or even bad at managing time. Framing it this way can make you feel even worse about the behaviour, and stops you learning the real reasons behind it.

    If you want to stop procrastinating, it’s important to understand why you do it in the first place.

    You may find yourself doing another, less urgent task, without even realising you’re procrastinating.
    Daenin/Shutterstock

    Why do I procrastinate?

    Procrastination can be a way of dealing with tricky emotions. Research shows we put off tasks we find boring or frustrating, as well as those we resent or that lack personal meaning.

    We may avoid tasks that create stress or painful emotions, such as completing a tax return where you owe a lot of money, or packing up a parent’s house after their death.

    There a few deeper reasons, too.

    Procrastination can be a sign of perfectionism. This is when an intense fear of failure – of getting something wrong – creates so much pressure to be perfect that it stops us from even getting started.

    People with low self-esteem also tend to procrastinate, whether or not they experience perfectionism. Here, it’s a negative self-view (“I’m not good at most things”) coupled with low confidence (“I probably won’t get it right”) that gets in the way of beginning a task.

    Distraction can be a factor, too. Most of us battle constant interruptions, with pings and alerts designed to redirect our attention. But being very easily distracted can also be a sign you’re avoiding the task.

    For some people, difficulty completing tasks could be a sign of an underlying issue such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. If you’re worried procrastination is affecting your day-to-day life, you can speak to your doctor to seek help.

    Distraction can be a factor.
    F8 Studio/Shutterstock

    Is procrastination ever helpful?

    It depends.

    Some people enjoy the pressure of a deadline. Leaving a task to the last minute can be a strategy to improve motivation or get it done in a limited time.

    Procrastination can also be a coping mechanism.

    Delaying unpleasant tasks may make us feel better in the moment. Avoiding the task may mean we don’t have to face the possibility of getting it wrong, or the negative emotions or consequences it involves.

    But this usually only works in the short term, and in the long term it’s more likely to cause problems.

    Procrastination can trigger self-criticism as well as negative emotions such as guilt and shame.

    In the long term it can also lead to mental health problems including anxiety and depression. Procrastinating has even been linked to poor outcomes in education – such as being caught copying in exams – and at work, including lower salaries and higher likelihood of unemployment.

    So what can we do about it?

    5 steps to tackling procrastination

    1. Face it – you’re procrastinating. Being able to identify and name these patterns is the first step to overcoming procrastination.

    2. Explore why. Understanding the underlying causes is key. Are you afraid of getting it wrong? Is your to-do list unrealistic? Or do you just love a tight deadline? If your procrastination results from perfectionism or low self-esteem you may wish to explore evidence-based treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy, with a therapist or through self-guided activities.

    3. Start prioritising. Take a good look at your to-do list. Are the most urgent or important things at the top? Have you given yourself enough time to complete the tasks? Breaking a task into smaller chunks and taking regular breaks will help prevent you from becoming overwhelmed. If you’re not sure what’s the most important, try talking it through with someone. If you tend to leave the most boring things to the last minute and then never get around to them, set some time aside at the start of each day to get these tasks done.

    4. Avoid distractions. Set your phone to “do not disturb”, hang a sign on the door, tell those around you you’ll be “offline” for a little while. Setting a clear start and end time can help you stick to this rule.

    5. Build in rewards. Life is hard work – be kind to yourself. Whenever you complete a difficult task or cross something off your to-do list, balance this by doing something more enjoyable. Building in rewards can make facing the to-do list a little bit easier.

    Catherine Houlihan 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. Why do I procrastinate? And can I do anything about it? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-i-procrastinate-and-can-i-do-anything-about-it-255770

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Evidence shows AI systems are already too much like humans. Will that be a problem?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sandra Peter, Director of Sydney Executive Plus, University of Sydney

    Studiostoks / Shutterstock

    What if we could design a machine that could read your emotions and intentions, write thoughtful, empathetic, perfectly timed responses — and seemingly know exactly what you need to hear? A machine so seductive, you wouldn’t even realise it’s artificial. What if we already have?

    In a comprehensive meta-analysis, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we show that the latest generation of large language model-powered chatbots match and exceed most humans in their ability to communicate. A growing body of research shows these systems now reliably pass the Turing test, fooling humans into thinking they are interacting with another human.

    None of us was expecting the arrival of super communicators. Science fiction taught us that artificial intelligence (AI) would be highly rational and all-knowing, but lack humanity.

    Yet here we are. Recent experiments have shown that models such as GPT-4 outperform humans in writing persuasively and also empathetically. Another study found that large language models (LLMs) excel at assessing nuanced sentiment in human-written messages.

    LLMs are also masters at roleplay, assuming a wide range of personas and mimicking nuanced linguistic character styles. This is amplified by their ability to infer human beliefs and intentions from text. Of course, LLMs do not possess true empathy or social understanding – but they are highly effective mimicking machines.

    We call these systems “anthropomorphic agents”. Traditionally, anthropomorphism refers to ascribing human traits to non-human entities. However, LLMs genuinely display highly human-like qualities, so calls to avoid anthropomorphising LLMs will fall flat.

    This is a landmark moment: when you cannot tell the difference between talking to a human or an AI chatbot online.

    On the internet, nobody knows you’re an AI

    What does this mean? On the one hand, LLMs promise to make complex information more widely accessible via chat interfaces, tailoring messages to individual comprehension levels. This has applications across many domains, such as legal services or public health. In education, the roleplay abilities can be used to create Socratic tutors that ask personalised questions and help students learn.

    At the same time, these systems are seductive. Millions of users already interact with AI companion apps daily. Much has been said about the negative effects of companion apps, but anthropomorphic seduction comes with far wider implications.

    Users are ready to trust AI chatbots so much that they disclose highly personal information. Pair this with the bots’ highly persuasive qualities, and genuine concerns emerge.

    Recent research by AI company Anthropic further shows that its Claude 3 chatbot was at its most persuasive when allowed to fabricate information and engage in deception. Given AI chatbots have no moral inhibitions, they are poised to be much better at deception than humans.

    This opens the door to manipulation at scale, to spread disinformation, or create highly effective sales tactics. What could be more effective than a trusted companion casually recommending a product in conversation? ChatGPT has already begun to provide product recommendations in response to user questions. It’s only a short step to subtly weaving product recommendations into conversations – without you ever asking.

    What can be done?

    It is easy to call for regulation, but harder to work out the details.

    The first step is to raise awareness of these abilities. Regulation should prescribe disclosure – users need to always know that they interact with an AI, like the EU AI Act mandates. But this will not be enough, given the AI systems’ seductive qualities.

    The second step must be to better understand anthropomorphic qualities. So far, LLM tests measure “intelligence” and knowledge recall, but none so far measures the degree of “human likeness”. With a test like this, AI companies could be required to disclose anthropomorphic abilities with a rating system, and legislators could determine acceptable risk levels for certain contexts and age groups.

    The cautionary tale of social media, which was largely unregulated until much harm had been done, suggests there is some urgency. If governments take a hands-off approach, AI is likely to amplify existing problems with spreading of mis- and disinformation, or the loneliness epidemic. In fact, Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has already signalled that he would like to fill the void of real human contact with “AI friends”.

    Relying on AI companies to refrain from further humanising their systems seems ill-advised. All developments point in the opposite direction. OpenAI is working on making their systems more engaging and personable, with the ability to give your version of ChatGPT a specific “personality”. ChatGPT has generally become more chatty, often asking followup questions to keep the conversation going, and its voice mode adds even more seductive appeal.

    Much good can be done with anthropomorphic agents. Their persuasive abilities can be used for ill causes and for good ones, from fighting conspiracy theories to enticing users into donating and other prosocial behaviours.

    Yet we need a comprehensive agenda across the spectrum of design and development, deployment and use, and policy and regulation of conversational agents. When AI can inherently push our buttons, we shouldn’t let it change our systems.

    Jevin West receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the Knight Foundation, and others. The full list of funders and affiliated organizations can be found here: https://jevinwest.org/cv.html

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

    – ref. Evidence shows AI systems are already too much like humans. Will that be a problem? – https://theconversation.com/evidence-shows-ai-systems-are-already-too-much-like-humans-will-that-be-a-problem-256980

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Please don’t tape your mouth at night, whatever TikTok says. A new study shows why this viral trend can be risky

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Moira Junge, Adjunct Clincal Associate Professor (Psychologist), Monash University

    K.IvanS/Shutterstock

    You might have heard of people using tape to literally keep their mouths shut while they sleep. Mouth taping has become a popular trend on social media, with many fans claiming it helps improve sleep and overall health.

    The purported benefits of mouth taping during sleep are largely anecdotal, and include claims of better airflow, less snoring, improved asthma symptoms, less of a dry mouth, being less likely to have bad breath, and better sleep quality.

    As the trend has gained momentum in recent years the claims have also come to include improved skin, mood and digestion – and even a sharper jawline.

    The rationale for mouth taping during sleep is to encourage breathing through the nose rather than through the mouth. When a person’s nasal passages are blocked, breathing switches from the nose to the mouth. Mouth breathing has been linked to conditions such as obstructive sleep apnoea.

    But is mouth taping an effective way to address these issues, and is it safe? A new review suggests taping your mouth shut while you sleep offers limited benefits – and could pose risks.

    What did the review find?

    In a new paper, Canadian researchers reviewed the scientific literature on mouth taping, searching for studies that mentioned terms such as “mouth breathing”, “mouth taping” and “sleep”.

    They searched specifically for studies looking at people with known mouth breathing and breathing-related sleeping problems such as obstructive sleep apnoea to understand the potential benefits and harms of mouth taping for this group.

    Obstructive sleep apnoea is a condition where your airway is partly or completely blocked at times while you’re asleep. This can cause you to stop breathing for short periods, called “apnoeas”. Apnoeas can happen many times a night, resulting in lowered oxygen levels in the blood as well as sleep disruption.

    The researchers found ten eligible studies published between 1999 and 2024, with a total of 213 participants. Eight studies looked at mouth taping, and two studies involved using a chin strap to keep the mouth shut.

    Only two studies identified any benefits of mouth taping for mild obstructive sleep apnoea. The observed improvements – to measures such as oxygen levels in the blood and number of apnoeas per hour – were modest.

    And although they were statistically significant, they were probably not clinically significant. This means these changes likely wouldn’t make much difference to symptoms or treatment decisions.

    The remainder of studies found no evidence mouth taping helps to treat mouth breathing or related conditions.

    Mouth taping has become a popular social media trend.
    K.IvanS/Shutterstock

    What’s more, four studies warned about potential serious harms. In particular, covering the mouth could pose a risk of asphyxiation (lack of oxygen that can lead to unconsciousness or death) for people whose mouth breathing is caused by significant blockage of the nasal airways. This kind of nasal obstruction could be a result of conditions such as hay fever, deviated septum, or enlarged tonsils.

    In other words, mouth taping is definitely not a good idea if you have a blocked nose, as it’s unsafe to have both the nose and the mouth obstructed at the same time during sleep.

    What’s the take-home message?

    The authors concluded there are very few benefits and some potential serious risks associated with mouth taping in people who are mouth breathers or have obstructive sleep apnoea.

    They did however note we need further high-quality evidence to better understand if mouth taping is safe and works.

    This review didn’t focus on any research relating to mouth taping for proposed improvements to mood, skin, digestion, sharper jaw lines and other things, so the researchers could not draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of mouth taping for those purposes.

    Snoring is one of the problems mouth taping has been suggested to help with.
    Kleber Cordeiro/Shutterstock

    Internationally, qualified sleep health professionals do not recommend mouth taping.

    If you have concerns about your sleep, the best thing to do is to consult trusted scientific sources or a health-care professional who will be able to guide you to address the underlying causes of your sleep challenges.

    Trying social media trends such as mouth taping before you seek expert advice could lead to delays in diagnosing serious conditions for which there are evidence-based treatments available.

    Mouth taping should definitely not be attempted in children.

    It’s possible that in some healthy adults, without respiratory conditions, without significant sleep disorders, and who don’t have tape allergies, that mouth taping could pose little harm and produce some modest benefits. But we don’t have enough evidence yet to know one way or the other.

    Moira Junge is CEO of The Sleep Health Foundation. She is also affiliated with the Healthylife Health Advisory Board and is a psychologist and clinic director at Yarraville Health Group.

    – ref. Please don’t tape your mouth at night, whatever TikTok says. A new study shows why this viral trend can be risky – https://theconversation.com/please-dont-tape-your-mouth-at-night-whatever-tiktok-says-a-new-study-shows-why-this-viral-trend-can-be-risky-256901

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Compression tights and tops: do they actually benefit you during (or after) exercise?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ben Singh, Research Fellow, Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia

    Olena Yakobchuk/Shutterstock

    You’ve seen them in every gym: tight black leggings, neon sleeves and even knee-length socks.

    Compression gear is everywhere, worn by weekend joggers, elite athletes and influencers striking poses mid-squat.

    But do compression garments actually improve your performance, or is the benefit mostly in your head?

    Let’s dive into the history, the science and whether they are worth your money.

    From hospitals to hashtags

    Compression garments didn’t start in sport. They were originally used in medical settings to improve blood flow in patients recovering from surgery or with circulation issues such as varicose veins.

    Doctors found tight garments that applied gentle pressure to limbs could help move blood and reduce swelling.

    But in the late 1990s and early 2000s, athletes, scientists and sports brands began experimenting with compression wear in training and competition.

    Companies such as SKINS, 2XU, and Under Armour entered the scene with bold promises: improved performance, reduced fatigue and faster recovery.

    Then, by the 2010s, compression wear wasn’t just for athletes – it had become a fashion statement.

    Social media helped drive the trend: influencers wore these items in gym selfies, TikTokers praised the sleek, sculpted look. And with the rise of athleisure, compression garments became everyday apparel, blending fitness with fashion.

    What are these garments supposed to do?

    Compression gear is designed to fit tightly against the skin and apply gentle, consistent pressure to muscles. The big claims made by manufacturers include:

    You’ll hear gym-goers say they feel “more supported” or “less sore” after using compression gear.

    Some even report improved posture or a mental boost – like stepping into a superhero suit.

    What the science says

    Research into compression garments has been growing steadily and the results are mixed – but interesting.

    A 2013 major meta-analysis reported moderate benefits across several recovery markers, including lower levels of creatine kinase (a sign of muscle damage) and less delayed-onset muscle soreness up to 72 hours after exercise.

    A 2016 review found compression garments reduced muscle soreness and swelling and boosted muscle power and strength. These improvements were up to 1.5 times greater (compared to people who didn’t wear compression garments) in some cases.

    Building on this, a 2017 review found people who wore compression gear recovered strength more quickly, with noticeable improvements within eight to 24 hours after a workout. Strength recovery scores were around 60% higher in those wearing compression gear compared to those who didn’t.

    But the findings are not consistent. A 2022 review of 19 trials found little effect on strength during the first few days post-exercise.

    And when it comes to actual performance, a comprehensive 2025 review of 51 studies concluded compression garments do not enhance race time or endurance performance in runners. And while they may reduce soft tissue vibration (which might feel more comfortable), they offered no meaningful edge in speed, stamina or oxygen use.

    Overall, in simpler terms: compression gear may help you recover faster but don’t expect it to turn you into an Olympic sprinter.

    When compression gear might help (and when it won’t)

    Here are some situations when compression garments can be genuinely useful:

    But don’t count on them to:

    • improve your times: there’s no strong evidence they boost speed or endurance

    • make you stronger: while some research has noted improvements in strength and power, this won’t necessarily have a noticeable effect on your athletic performance

    • replace training or good sleep: recovery still depends on the basics – rest, hydration and nutrition.

    So, should you wear them?

    Compression outfits won’t magically transform your body or training results. But they aren’t a waste of money either.

    If they make you feel more comfortable, confident or supported, that’s a valid reason to wear them. The psychological boost alone can be enough to enhance motivation or focus.

    And when it comes to post-exercise recovery, the evidence is solid enough to justify keeping a pair in your gym bag.

    Think of them like a good pair of shoes. They won’t run the race for you, but they might make the journey a little smoother.

    And if you’re just wearing them for the outfit photo on Instagram? That’s fine, too. Sometimes, confidence is the best workout gear of all.

    Ben Singh 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. Compression tights and tops: do they actually benefit you during (or after) exercise? – https://theconversation.com/compression-tights-and-tops-do-they-actually-benefit-you-during-or-after-exercise-255719

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Vivid, thrilling and ghastly: new theatrical adaptation of The Birds evokes climate disaster, terrorism and lockdown

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Austin, Senior Lecturer in Theatre, The University of Melbourne

    Pia Johnson/Malthouse Theatre

    Malthouse’s new production of The Birds is a thrillingly realised take on the 1952 short story by Daphne Du Maurier. Adapted by Louise Fox and directed by Matthew Lutton, this vivid realisation is a chilling treatise on fear and resilience in the face of an external threat.

    Paula Arundell plays Tessa, a wife and mother whose family has recently undergone a seachange to a sleepy little coastal town. Tessa serves as both our narrator and key storyteller as the show unfolds, and Arundell embodies multiple other characters with precise vocal and physical shifts.

    As the birds start to amass on the sleepy seaside hamlet, Tessa becomes increasingly concerned about their intentions. After a random avian attack on a neighbour and the terror of the persistent nocturnal window-tapping visitors who eventually invade Tessa’s daughter’s bedroom, it becomes clear to Tessa her concerns are justified.

    At first, no one takes the threat of the birds as seriously as Tessa. They fail to recognise the sinister and particular interest the birds have in the human species. Her husband and neighbour dismiss Tessa’s concerns as a sort of paranoia.

    But as the amount of birds begins to sharply increase, creating a shadow in the sky that blocks out the sun, Tessa becomes the galvanising force determined to protect her family from this imminent deadly attack.

    A theatrical feat

    Sound, light and text support the audience to imagine rich landscapes of domestic, natural and urban settings.

    Kat Chan’s set is stripped back, with a raised area in the middle of the stage and a few set and prop items on long tables along the walls. With this deceptively simple design, we are transported to the seashore, the interior of a home and a neighbourhood park as we journey with Tessa over two or three days during this apocalyptic disaster.

    Kat Chan’s set is deceptively simple.
    Pia Johnson/Malthouse Theatre

    J. David Franzke’s sound design is a feat of theatrical audio engineering. Headphones immerse the audience within a binaural sonic landscape.

    Every sound Arundell makes on stage is emphasised, interwoven with a cacophony of bird squawks, cries, songs and calls.

    Microphones and speakers are all cleverly disguised as wooden bird boxes, adding a beautiful conceptual touch to the never-seen – but absolutely present – flocks of murderous birds.

    Post-pandemic theatre

    In the original story, the male protagonist strategises his defence against the birds using logic and reasoning, as a post-World War Two disability limits him physically.

    Fox’s adaptation nods to this part of the original story by a subtle reference to Tessa’s husband’s mental health, and that he has been “let go” (or, as he interjects, “let down”) by his company.

    It is clear Tessa must use her wits to protect her family, including her husband. She has no one she can rely on but herself.

    As this story reaches a ghastly and violent climax, I was struck by the similarities to some of the experience of pandemic lockdowns, still so recent in our collective memory.

    Creative responses that reflect and depict this time are only really just beginning to emerge on Australian stages.

    Maybe it was the effect of wearing headphones while watching a live performance that catapulted me back to the isolated feeling of only connecting with others outside my home through the digital realm.

    The Birds evokes the isolation felt during COVID lockdowns.
    Pia Johnson/Malthouse Theatre

    Tessa barricades her frightened family in her house to fend off this pervasive and ever-present threat. She counts her food supplies and how long they might last, operates under a curfew controlled by the tides, and tunes into the radio to hear what the government has to say about the bird situation. I was taken immediately back to a time of daily COVID numbers and premier briefings, toilet paper rationing and social distancing.

    The possibility of what The Birds represents is manifold, with ideas of climate disaster, genocide, war and terrorism all present in the storytelling and the richly evocative text.

    The simple final image of a woman reclining on a chair, calmly reciting names of bird species as she smokes a cigarette and awaits the dread that will come in the night is a powerful symbol of quiet fortitude.

    Perhaps in this post pandemic context, it is Tessa’s determination in the face of this catastrophe that might speak to us of resilience in the face of seemingly impossible disasters and how we must continue to adapt, fight and resist to survive.

    The Birds is at Malthouse Theatre, Melbourne, until June 7.

    Sarah Austin 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. Vivid, thrilling and ghastly: new theatrical adaptation of The Birds evokes climate disaster, terrorism and lockdown – https://theconversation.com/vivid-thrilling-and-ghastly-new-theatrical-adaptation-of-the-birds-evokes-climate-disaster-terrorism-and-lockdown-254819

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How should central banks respond to US tariffs? The RBA provides some clues

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stella Huangfu, Associate professor, University of Sydney

    Lightspring/Shutterstock

    With the return of Donald Trump to the White House, the United States has signalled a return to aggressive tariff policies, upending economic forecasts around the world.

    This leaves central banks with a tricky dilemma: how to respond when inflation and global growth are being shaped by political decisions rather than economic fundamentals?

    Tariffs lift import prices and disrupt trade, which could lead to higher inflation. But they can also dampen consumer demand and undermine business confidence, which would slow economic growth.

    This leaves central banks balancing two opposing forces – do they raise interest rates to control inflation, or cut interest rates to support growth?

    Three big shocks in a row

    This week, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Governor Michele Bullock addressed this challenge in a press conference after cutting interest rates for the second time this year.

    She described the current period as one of “shifting and unusual uncertainty”.

    Central banks, she noted, have faced three major shocks in succession: the global financial crisis, the COVID pandemic, and now the fallout from Trump’s trade policies.

    Each, she said, is different – this latest one being political in nature and harder to categorise. Bullock stressed the difficulty of judging whether such shocks are supply-driven or demand-driven, or both, and emphasised the need to prepare for a range of outcomes.

    So, the Reserve Bank took the unusual step of outlining three alternative global scenarios – trade war, trade peace, and a central baseline. Each one has distinct implications for Australian monetary policy.

    It’s a clear example of how central banks can remain flexible and forward-looking in a world where the next shock may look nothing like the last.

    Looking at three global scenarios

    1. Trade war (escalation)

    In this scenario laid out in the Reserve Bank’s quarterly statement on monetary policy, the US imposes sweeping new tariffs. That prompts retaliation and a slowdown in global trade. Supply chains are hit and business confidence falls.

    Australia would feel the consequences quickly: weaker export demand, rising import prices, and a difficult mix of slower growth and temporary inflation. Here, the Reserve Bank would likely look past short-term price increases and focus on deteriorating demand. A rate cut would become more likely, despite inflation being above target in the short run.

    2. Trade peace (de-escalation)

    If the US backs away from new tariffs and tensions ease, global confidence improves and trade stabilises. Australia benefits from stronger global demand, a rebound in commodity exports and rising investment.

    In this setting, inflation rises gradually due to higher activity – not import price shocks. The Reserve Bank might hold rates steady, or even consider hiking rates if inflation pressures build. But this scenario also carries risk: if the recovery is faster than expected, interest rates may be left low for too long.

    3. Baseline scenario

    In the bank’s central case, trade tensions persist but do not escalate. Global growth slows moderately and firms adjust to ongoing strain in supply chains.

    Australia sees subdued but stable economic growth. Inflation remains within the 2-3% target band in the near term, and the Reserve Bank would stay open to either raising or lowering interest rates, depending on how risks evolve.

    Other central banks face similar choices

    Australia’s central bank is not alone in navigating these challenges.

    At the Bank of England, the decision to cut rates in May showed a divided Monetary Policy Committee. While the majority supported a 0.25% cut, two members – including trade expert Swati Dhingra – called for a larger 0.5% move to better support growth. The split highlights the difficulty of gauging how aggressively to respond in an uncertain environment.

    In the US, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has warned of the risks posed by Trump’s new tariffs. Speaking in April, Powell said the impact could be “larger than expected”, threatening both growth and inflation.

    With trade policy largely out of the Fed’s hands, he noted, the central bank must still monitor developments on tariffs closely because of their potential to disrupt both employment and prices.

    The road ahead

    The re-emergence of US tariffs adds to the complexity facing central banks. As Bullock noted, this is not just another economic shock – it’s a politically driven one, which is harder to model and forecast.

    The Reserve Bank’s response offers a practical framework: map out potential scenarios, weigh their implications and stand ready to move. In an uncertain world, monetary policy must be based not just on data, but on judgement, flexibility and contingency planning.



    Read more:
    What are tariffs?

    Stella Huangfu 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 should central banks respond to US tariffs? The RBA provides some clues – https://theconversation.com/how-should-central-banks-respond-to-us-tariffs-the-rba-provides-some-clues-257329

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Half the remaining habitat of Australia’s most at-risk species is outside protected areas

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Ward, Lecturer, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University

    Land clearing for agriculture poses a real threat to many species. Rich Carey/Shutterstock

    More and more Australian species are being listed as critically endangered – the final stage before extinction in the wild. Hundreds of species of plants and animals are now at this point.

    For a species to be critically endangered, it is on death’s door. Its numbers must have shrunk alarmingly and its outlook is bleak. Why? One common reason is habitat loss. If we convert bushland or swamps into farmland or suburbs, we reduce how much space species have to survive.

    Our new research examines how much habitat is left for 305 of Australia’s critically endangered species – more than 70% of the total. Alarmingly, we found almost half the remaining habitat is outside the protected area estate. That means the last remaining areas where these species are clinging on could very easily be cleared.

    The good news? We now know exactly which areas most need to be safeguarded. If we protected an extra 0.5% of Australia’s land mass, we could slash the risk to hundreds of species approaching the point of no return. This is a relatively small amount compared to the 22.5% of Australia that already has some form of protection. The Australian government has committed to increasing this to 30% by 2030.

    What did we do?

    Australia now has 426 critically endangered species, including plants, fish, frogs, reptiles, mammals, birds and other animals. We focused on 305 of these species – those clinging to life in six or fewer isolated patches of habitat across Australia.

    We then worked with 18 scientists whose expertise covers these 305 species to refine the maps of habitat for species to ensure we used the most accurate and current data available.

    Once we had these maps, we compared them to maps of Australia’s network of protected areas. When we found unprotected habitat, we assessed whether it might be appealing for clearing and conversion into farmland.

    When we put this data together, we found something startling – and encouraging. Our work found approximately 85,000 square kilometres of habitat (about 1% of Australia’s land area) urgently needs protection and management to halt extinction for these 305 species.

    This map shows Australia’s existing protected areas in green. Suitable but unprotected habitat for our critically endangered species are coloured from dark blue through to yellow. The lighter the colour, the more species this habitat is suited to. Islands not to scale.
    Michelle Ward, CC BY-NC-ND

    Alarmingly, half of this vital habitat currently lies outside existing protected areas, with 39 species having none of their remaining habitat in the protected area estate. Habitat in protected areas is safer, but not completely safe. Fuel reduction burns, invasive species and even harvesting can affect species inside protected areas.

    Consider the Margaret River burrowing crayfish (Engaewa pseudoreducta), Lyon’s grassland striped skink (Austroablepharus barrylyoni) and the Rosewood keeled snail (Ordtrachia septentrionalis). Each of these critically endangered species survives in one or two tiny patches of habitat outside the protected area estate. They could be wiped out by something as simple as a highway expansion or a new suburban development.

    Some remaining habitat is especially precious, as it could support several critically endangered species at once. These include areas west of Atherton in Queensland as well as areas around Tumbarumba in New South Wales and Campbell Town in Tasmania.

    Other hotspots include Lord Howe Island, Macquarie Island, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island and its neighbour Phillip Island. Many critically endangered species with small ranges survive here, including Suter’s striped glass-snail, Christmas Island spleenwort and the Lord Howe Island phasmid (giant stick insect). While most of these islands are well protected, their conservation programs need to be well funded to deal with ongoing threats.

    The critically endangered Lyon’s grassland striped skink is now found only on small fragments of habitat southwest of Cairns.
    Conrad Hoskin, CC BY-NC-ND

    The last of them

    When a species goes extinct, we lose an entire set of genes, traits, behaviours and history. Despite recent headlines, extinction is forever.

    In 2022, the Australian government pledged to bring an end to extinction of the continent’s unique species.

    This is easier said than done – extinctions are continuing, especially among invertebrates.

    Our maps show the last known areas where these 305 species are holding on. If nothing is done, some of these areas of habitat will likely be converted to farming or grazing land. The most logical thing to do is to preserve and manage this habitat as quickly as possible.

    The challenge is ownership. At present, much of this habitat occurs on private land (about 17,000 km²) or in state forests (about 7,000 km²) which often does not stop activities that cause habitat destruction, such as native forest logging. Other areas are under different forms of tenure which often lack stringent conservation measures.

    Protecting species on private lands requires careful negotiation and incentives for landholders. The government doesn’t have to buy the land – it just has to find ways to conserve it. Australia now has many good examples of conservation on private land.

    Agricultural potential poses another challenge. More than half (55%) of the habitat we identified has a clear overlap with lands suitable for farming or grazing. These preferred areas are usually flat and on fertile soils.

    Conversion of habitat to farms or paddocks is a major reason why Australia is still one of the top land-clearing nations. In just one year, 6,800 km² of woody vegetation was cleared in Queensland – largely to make way for agriculture.

    What can we do?

    Our research gives policymakers detailed, geographically specific and actionable information on vital areas of habitat remaining for more than 70% of Australia’s critically endangered species.

    These maps can help shape decisions on land management, expansion of protected areas and where biodiversity stewardship programs should be prioritised.

    Policymakers must find effective incentives for landowners to preserve species on their land and rigorously enforce regulations to prevent illegal clearing.

    Australia stands at a crossroads. The action (or inaction) of decision makers will change the fate of hundreds of critically endangered species. We know where these species are just holding on. The question is whether we can get to them in time.

    Michelle Ward has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, WWF Australia, and the federal government’s National Environmental Science Program, and has advised both state and federal government on conservation policy.

    James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water, Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on the scientific committee of BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

    – ref. Half the remaining habitat of Australia’s most at-risk species is outside protected areas – https://theconversation.com/half-the-remaining-habitat-of-australias-most-at-risk-species-is-outside-protected-areas-256818

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Disaster or digital spectacle? The dangers of using floods to create social media content

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

    Almost 700 rescues had been carried out in New South Wales by Friday morning as
    record-breaking rainfall pounds the state. Tragically, four people have died in floodwaters.

    Amid the chaos, videos posted on social media show people deliberately entering or standing above swollen rivers and flooded roads. It is a pattern of dangerous behaviour that occurs frequently during natural disasters in Australia.

    Filming unsafe acts for social media is not just risky for participants. It may inspire copycat behaviour, and, if things go wrong, can endanger the lives of rescuers. It’s a public health problem which requires new remedies.

    Selfies in floods: a risky business

    During a flood, water can be deceiving. Just 15cm of water can knock an adult off their feet or cause a car to lose traction and float. Submerged debris and contaminated water add to the dangers.

    Emergency services routinely warn the public not to enter floodwaters – on foot or in vehicles. But many people ignore the warnings, including those out to create social media content.

    In a startling example posted on Tiktok during the current floods, a young man stands on a mossy log which has fallen over a flooded river. The video, accompanied by dramatic music, shows swirling floodwaters surging beneath him. One wrong step, and the man could easily have drowned.

    In other examples posted on Tiktok in recent days, a woman wades through murky floodwaters, and a person films as the car they are travelling in drives down a flooded road.

    Similar behaviour was observed during floods in Townsville earlier this year. Residents filmed themselves diving and wading into floodwaters, and towing each other on inflatable rafts.

    And during ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred, social media was filled with images of people in Queensland surfing dangerous swells and wading in rough surf.

    A worrying trend

    Our research explores the links between social media and adverse health outcomes.

    Selfie-related injury has become a public health concern. People are increasingly venturing off-trail, seeking out attractive but hazardous locations such as cliff edges and coastal rock platforms.

    These behaviours can lead to injury and death. They can also put emergency services personnel in harm’s way. In 2021, for example, a woman fell into a swollen river on Canberra’s outskirts while trying to take a selfie with friends, prompting a police official to warn:

    There is no photo or social media post that is worth risking your life to get. Any water rescue puts the lives of not only of yourself but those of emergency services personnel at risk.

    Getting to grips with the problem

    How should the problem be tackled? Previous research by others has recommended “no-selfie zones”, barriers, and signs as ways to prevent selfie incidents. But our research suggests these measures may not be enough.

    The phenomenon of selfie-related incidents requires a public health approach. This entails addressing the behaviour through prevention, education, and other interventions such as via social media platforms.

    In the latest floods, unsafe behaviour has occurred despite a series of official flood, weather and other warnings. Residents also continue to drive into floodwaters, despite repeated pleas from authorities.

    Official warnings compete with – and can lose out to – more emotionally compelling, visually rich content. If the public sees other people behaving recklessly and apparently unharmed, then even clear, fact-based warnings can be ignored.

    This is especially true in communities experiencing “alert-fatigue” after having gone through disasters before.

    Sometimes, vague terminology in warnings means the messages don’t necessarily cut through. We’ve seen this before in relation to surf safety. Technical phrases such as “hazardous swell” don’t change behaviour if people don’t understand what they mean.

    For warnings to work, they need to be clear and provide instruction – stating what the danger actually is, and what to explicitly do, or not do.

    For social media users, that might mean spelling out not to go into floodwaters to capture content for social media.

    We’ve also previously called on social media companies to be held more accountable for the dangerous content they publish – by flagging risky content and supporting in-app safety messaging, especially at high-risk locations or during extreme weather events.

    What to do right now

    If you’re in or near a flood zone, follow guidance from emergency services to keep yourself and your loved ones safe.

    When it comes to using social media in an emergency:

    • stay entirely out of floodwaters, even for a quick photo

    • think before you post. Your safety is more important than your content. No post is worth risking your life

    • avoid glamourising risk. Sharing risky photos or videos can influence others to do the same, potentially with worse outcomes

    • follow official advice. Floodwaters are unpredictable. Warnings are issued for a reason

    • use your platform for good. Share verified information, support affected communities and help amplify safety messages.

    As extreme weather becomes more frequent in Australia under climate change, so too will the urge to document them. But we risk turning disasters into digital spectacles – at the expense of our lives and that of rescuers.

    Samuel Cornell receives funding from Meta Platforms, Inc. His research is supported by a University of New South Wales Sydney, University Postgraduate Award. His research is supported by Royal Life Saving Society – Australia to aid in the prevention of drowning. Research at Royal Life Saving Society – Australia is supported by the Australian government. He has been affiliated with Surf Life Saving Australia and Surf Life Saving NSW in a paid and voluntary capacity.

    Amy Peden receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Meta Platforms, and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. She holds an honorary affiliation with Royal Life Saving Society – Australia.

    – ref. Disaster or digital spectacle? The dangers of using floods to create social media content – https://theconversation.com/disaster-or-digital-spectacle-the-dangers-of-using-floods-to-create-social-media-content-257350

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The death of Jelena Dokic’s father reveals the ‘complex and difficult grief’ of losing an estranged parent

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Breen, Professor of Psychology, Curtin University

    Grieving the death of a parent is often considered a natural part of life. But there are added layers of complexity when you had a difficult or estranged relationship.

    This week former tennis star Jelena Dokic confirmed the death of her father and former coach Damir, whose verbal, physical and emotional abuse she revealed in 2009 and further detailed in her 2017 autobiography. They had been estranged for a decade.

    In a social media post on Thursday, Dokic wrote about her “conflicting and complex emotions and feelings” around his death:

    no matter how how hard, difficult and in the last 10 years even non existent [sic] our relationship and communication was, it is never easy losing a parent […] The loss of an estranged parent comes with a difficult and complicated grief.

    Dokic’s news is a reminder that, when a parent dies, not all of us get to grieve a stable, warm and comforting relationship.

    As in her case, a strained relationship might even be marked by maltreatment or abuse. Relinquishing contact can sometimes be the best, albeit difficult, choice.

    When the parent dies, the loss can feel surprisingly complex. We may be grieving both the literal death of the parent and the figurative death, of what should have been – what we wished for and desired.

    Death can spark more than sadness

    Grief is not a single emotion. Usually, it involves a combination of many. Common feelings can include sadness, guilt, anger and even relief.

    In sharing her social media post, Dokic has said among conflicting emotions she’s chosen to “focus on a good memory”.

    Grief can reach beyond feelings. It can disrupt eating and sleeping habits and impair memory and concentration.

    Deaths can also affect relationships.

    For example, when grieving, someone might receive a lot of social support from family, friends and colleagues. But for others, the support they’d like might not be forthcoming. The lack of support is yet another loss and is linked to worse physical and mental health.

    Family members may also react in different ways. It might be jarring or alienating if your sibling responds differently, for example by sharing fond memories of a parent you found harsh and distant.

    A death can also affect your financial standing. A grieving person may be burdened with outstanding bills and funeral payments. Or the impact can be positive, via windfalls from insurance and inheritance.

    Family members may grieve in different ways.
    Meteoritka/Shutterstock

    What if I don’t feel sad?

    With grief, it’s OK to feel how you feel. You might think you’re grieving the “wrong” way, but it can be helpful to remember there are no strict rules about how to grieve “right”.

    Be gentle on yourself. And give other family members, who may have had a different relationship with the parent and therefore grieve differently, the same courtesy.

    It’s also OK to feel conflicted about going to the funeral.

    In this case, take the time to think through the pros and cons of attending. It might be helpful in processing your grief and in receiving support. Or you might feel that attending would be too difficult or emotionally unsafe for you.

    If you choose to attend, it can help to go with someone who can support you through it.

    In an estranged relationship, the adult child might not even find out about the death of the parent for many weeks or months afterwards. This means there is no option of attending the funeral or other mourning rituals. Consider making your own rituals to help process the loss and grief.

    What if I do feel sad – but still hurt?

    It can be really confusing to feel sad about the death of a parent with whom we had a difficult, strained or violent relationship.

    Identifying where these conflicting thoughts and feelings come from can help.

    You might need to acknowledge and grieve the loss of your parent, the loss of the parent-child relationship you deserved, and even the loss of hoped-for apologies and reconnections.

    In many cases, it is a combination of these losses that can make the grief more challenging.

    It may also be difficult to get the social support you need from family, friends and colleagues.

    These potential helpers might be unaware of the difficulties you experienced in the relationship, or incorrectly believe troubled relationships are easier to grieve.

    It can feel like a taboo to speak ill of the dead, but it might be helpful to be clear about the relationship and your needs so that people can support you better.

    In fact, grieving the death of people with whom we have challenging, conflicting or even abusive relationships can lead to more grief than the death of those with whom we shared a warm, loving and more straightforward relationship.

    If the loss is particularly difficult and your grief doesn’t change and subside over time, seek support from your general practitioner. They might be able to recommend a psychologist or counsellor with expertise in grief.

    Alternatively, you can find certified bereavement practitioners who have specialised training in grief support online or seek telephone support from Griefline on 1300 845 745.

    Lauren Breen receives funding from Healthway and has previously received funding from Wellcome Trust, Australian Research Council, Department of Health (Western Australia), Silver Chain, iCare Dust Diseases Board (New South Wales), and Cancer Council (Western Australia). She is on the board of Lionheart Camp for Kids, is a member of Grief Australia, and a Fellow of the Australian Psychological Society.

    – ref. The death of Jelena Dokic’s father reveals the ‘complex and difficult grief’ of losing an estranged parent – https://theconversation.com/the-death-of-jelena-dokics-father-reveals-the-complex-and-difficult-grief-of-losing-an-estranged-parent-257324

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Colonial-era borders create conflict in Africa’s oceans – how to resolve them

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood, Lecturer in Sustainable Futures, University of St Andrews

    Africa has 38 coastal and island nations. Their maritime industries – including energy, tourism, maritime transport, shipping and fishing – play a crucial role in developing these nations.

    Key to harnessing these resources are Africa’s maritime boundaries – lines on a map showing the legal divisions of the ocean between neighbouring coastal states.

    Some of these boundaries were created by colonial powers and kept after independence. Their purpose was to achieve territorial security and ensure the exclusive exploitation of resources and to maintain navigational freedom.

    But Africa’s maritime boundaries sometimes lead to conflict, prevent cooperation on resource management and create room for maritime crimes, like illegal fishing. This is because they are often contested. Countries have overlapping claims and varying interests in resource exploration. This is common in maritime areas rich in oil, gas and fisheries, and deep seabed resources.

    In our recent paper we found that using international law to resolve maritime boundaries does not always bring peace, especially when it results in ceding the disputed area to one party. It can result in animosity between countries and breed room for continued distrust among peoples.

    Today, Africa has the most unresolved maritime boundary disputes in the world and the lowest number of settled boundary disputes.

    As more ocean resources are discovered, climate change may heighten disputes. Rising sea levels can gradually submerge maritime zones, potentially affecting the baselines from which these zones are measured. This could create uncertainty or trigger new conflicts.

    In our paper, we suggest a collaborative approach to resolving maritime disputes. We hope that this will help prevent many African countries from missing out on the benefits of their oceans.

    Price of disputed boundaries

    Disagreements over maritime boundaries can have many negative effects.

    Research has shown that criminal activities tend to increase in disputed maritime boundaries. For instance, illegal fishers are aware that because there is dispute over a border, there will also be enforcement gaps.

    Countries in dispute will also not work together and will not be sending patrols to contested areas. For instance, in 2016, a Chinese vessel escaped into Sierra Leone to avoid capture. When Guinean naval forces boarded the vessel for enforcement, there was an exchange of fire and 11 Guineans were detained by Sierra Leone.

    When boundaries are disputed, it also means that local fishers are likely to encroach into neighbouring waters, often unknowingly, in search of better catches. Given the significance of fisheries to coastal livelihoods and the extent of depletion, this threatens peace and security. It fuels tension between communities and countries over access to dwindling resources.

    Disagreements over maritime boundaries also diminish maritime security cooperation, complicate joint patrols, and divert attention from tackling shared threats such as piracy.

    Colonialism never ended

    Unfortunately, resolving maritime boundary disputes is complicated by a principle in international law known as uti possidetis juris – “as you possess under law”.

    The principle says that when countries argue over borders, international law, built around colonial-era boundaries, is used to decide who gets what. This creates a “winner-takes-all” approach – one side gains control over the disputed area and resources. International courts, like the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, follow the provisions of law reinforcing uti possidetis.

    Our examination of maritime boundary disputes in west and central Africa found that the principle of uti possidetis juris had failed to alleviate maritime boundary tensions. In some cases, it has exacerbated them.

    One example is a maritime dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria decided in 2002. The dispute was over who had control of Bakassi, an oil-rich region, and its maritime frontier.

    The uti possidetis juris principle upheld the lines drawn at the time of Nigeria’s independence and resulted in the ceding of Bakassi to Cameroon. The impact of the resolution lingers. To date, thousands of displaced Bakassi people that returned to Nigeria have yet to be resettled and reintegrated. Disputes also continue between fishers from Nigeria and Cameroonian law enforcement agents. In extreme cases, it results in death, like the alleged killing of 97 Nigerian fishers by Cameroonian marine police.

    The way forward

    In our paper, we recommend that courts, tribunals or disputing countries consider joint management agreements to resolve maritime disputes. Under such agreements, countries share and manage disputed maritime resources.

    These agreements will allow for the joint management of shared resources. It will also encourage cooperation and collaboration in other areas, such as joint operations to combat illegal fishing and piracy. While international courts may apply uti possidetis juris as required by law, countries should be encouraged to negotiate special arrangements – such as joint development agreements – as part of the resolution process. Especially in cases where livelihoods and longstanding community ties risk being disrupted by unilateral decisions or the ceding of disputed areas to one party.

    While not perfect, this approach has already improved cooperation on security and resource use at sea. It has worked in places like Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal and Guinea-Bissau. Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire also have a joint management framework in place for their shared boundaries to avoid future disputes.

    Prolonged boundary disputes only enable criminal actors to exploit Africa’s resources, undermining collective progress. A shift towards collaborative solutions is essential for achieving a sustainable and prosperous future for the continent.

    Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood receives funding from the PEW Charitable Trust and the Research Council of Norway. The St Andrews Research Internship Scheme (StARIS) supported the initial peer-reviewed research.

    Elizabeth Nwarueze 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. Colonial-era borders create conflict in Africa’s oceans – how to resolve them – https://theconversation.com/colonial-era-borders-create-conflict-in-africas-oceans-how-to-resolve-them-248577

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Vaccines: why these young Africans are hesitant about them and what might change their minds

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Oluwaseyi Dolapo Somefun, Research associate, University of the Western Cape

    Vaccines have proved to be one of the most effective tools in fighting infectious diseases, but convincing people to get vaccinated can be tough. Especially young people.

    During the global COVID-19 pandemic, declared by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020, many countries reported high levels of vaccine hesitancy among younger population groups. Negative healthcare experiences and general distrust of government have cultivated vaccine hesitancy across Africa. Misleading information about vaccine side-effects on social media adds to this challenge.

    This hesitancy continues today. A 2024 study on adolescents and young adults (aged 10 to 35) in sub-Saharan Africa found a vaccine acceptance rate of just 38.7%.

    These concerns were echoed in a recent study we carried out among 165 young adults in Nigeria, South Africa and Zambia, looking at attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine. We wanted to know what could be done to help improve future vaccine acceptance, inform campaigns and prepare for future public health responses.

    Participants were hesitant to be vaccinated, for various reasons, and suggested what policymakers could do to improve vaccine uptake.

    Understanding young people’s perspectives on vaccine hesitancy and what can be done to address this is crucial for improving vaccine acceptance in the future.

    What young adults told us

    Our research gathered data through focus groups and interviews.

    The participants described a fear of injections, uncertainty about side effects, distrust in healthcare systems and rude healthcare workers.

    Some participants were worried about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, particularly how it might affect those with pre-existing health conditions.

    Many believed that the vaccine was developed too quickly without sufficient testing and a lack of accessible information.

    Many expressed a strong fear of needles. A young South African woman aged 19 commented:

    I am afraid of injections, so for me, it would be better if there was something that could be taken orally, something you can drink.

    Getting over the hurdle

    We found young people often felt left out of vaccine conversations. They wanted to be part of the solution and make informed choices but needed the right tools and support to do so.

    Participants suggested practical ideas to help boost vaccine acceptance among their peers.

    Several highlighted the importance of assessing individual health status before administering vaccines, to avoid adverse interactions with existing medical conditions and treatments. They believed that situations where vaccines were mistakenly blamed for pre-existing illnesses or ongoing treatments could be avoided.

    Participants suggested innovative strategies to make vaccines more accessibile. Mobile vaccination sites and community-based outreach programmes were some of the suggestions.

    They must introduce mobile clinics, so that people don’t find themselves having to travel long distances to vaccinate. – 18-year-old male, South Africa

    Young people also suggested household visits to people who were immobile because of age, illness or disability.

    Many advocated for non-injectable vaccine options, such as oral medications or microneedle patches, which could improve accessibility and reduce anxiety.

    The oral polio vaccine, which has been widely used in global polio eradication efforts, is an example of a non-injectable vaccine.

    COVID-19 microneedle patch prototypes are being explored for clinical testing.

    The youth urged public figures, including politicians, celebrities and influencers, to publicly endorse the vaccine.

    It would be nice if the president could be shown on television receiving a vaccine so that we can see for ourselves whether he is given the same thing that everyone else receives. – 20-year-old male, South Africa

    More engaging videos, interactive interviews and testimonials from vaccinated individuals could be shared across social media platforms.

    The young people also emphasised the importance of comprehensive training for healthcare providers. They highlighted the need for healthcare professionals to provide respectful and empathetic care. They suggested that, by fostering respectful communication, healthcare providers could create a more welcoming and comfortable environment for their clients.

    In addition, providing vaccine education in schools could educate pupils so that they could make decisions on their own.

    Way forward

    Engaging young people as active participants in shaping public health strategies can help increase vaccine acceptance and ensure a healthier future for all.

    We believe that our findings can be applied in two ways.

    First, to inform the design of tailored interventions that better resonate with young people’s desires and needs, paving the way for increased vaccine uptake and acceptability.

    Second, to highlight areas where young people may need further information and engagement, to better understand some of the broader issues and why some of their recommendations might not be feasible in the short or longer term.

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

    – ref. Vaccines: why these young Africans are hesitant about them and what might change their minds – https://theconversation.com/vaccines-why-these-young-africans-are-hesitant-about-them-and-what-might-change-their-minds-249629

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Marathon runners rely on family and experts to succeed, while races rely on passionate volunteers

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Julia Yarkoni, Fellow in Global Journalism, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto

    This past April, the Boston Marathon attracted more than 32,000 runners and approximately half a million spectators. With such a huge crowd on hand, it’s easy to think that the athletes’ major source of support comes from fans of the sport. More than a million people annually run marathon races, and most of them have a team of people behind them.

    Marathoners rely on the strengths of a community of people. Families, coaches, marathon volunteers, race directors and health professionals dedicate time and energy to the runners’ dreams. And each group protects the health of the athletes in a different way. These unsung heroes make the impossible possible and they do it because the sport of long-distance running is a community endeavour.

    Families lay the foundation; research found that partners are “strikingly co-operative” as the non-running partner often picks up chores and child care uncomplainingly because they believe in the end goal. And a [2023 New York Times] article reported that athletes reciprocate by giving their partner recreational time.

    Running is a lifestyle

    When a family member is training to complete a marathon, families recognize there is safety in sticking together. Registered dietitian Kristy Baumann, owner of Marathon Nutritionist in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., has run 13 marathons. She describes how her mother would accompany her when she trained for hours.

    “My mom would bike with me on my long runs,” she says.

    In a 2015 article for Runner’s World, runner Courtney Crandell described how her family made sure she ate, maintained her health insurance and had a ride home after the race.

    Long-distance running draws people together who are not family. Coaches get to know their runners intimately and can prevent racers from ending up in dangerous situations. For example, Molly Monk, an athlete with unpredictable blood pressure, relied on her coach to help her train so that she avoided passing out during the marathon.

    Preparing physically and mentally

    Andy Jones-Wilkins, an American endurance running coach and writer, takes pride in being able to train marathon racers for four to six months because he values his relationships with runners. Jones-Wilkins, 57, is currently coaching 24 athletes scattered across the U.S.

    “My job as a coach is to give them not just the physical but also the mental and emotional tools to not just prepare for the race but to execute and to finish,” he says.

    Jones-Wilkins stays in contact with his athletes to debrief and to discuss with them the next step forward, particularly if they were disappointed on race day.

    Thirty-four years of long-distance running has taught Jones-Wilkins who the true unsung heroes are: “The people who put on these events (race directors) are the heart and soul of this sport.”

    Supporting runners

    Jones-Wilkins’ admiration for race directors led him to write “The Race Director Chronicles,” an online series profiling different race directors. He says they are often unpaid, deal with thousands of race details and invariably face negative feedback. He particularly admires the talent these individuals have for networking.

    Long-distance running brings together introverts and extroverts. Tim Bradley is one of those extroverts. A volunteer co-ordinator specializing in running events in Los Angeles, he works 11 races a year and also created a volunteer registration platform to help other volunteer co-ordinators: “I can’t think of other sports that recruit so many volunteers and are so dependent on them.”

    He typically starts recruitment four months before a race and registers 4,000 volunteers in preparation for race day. Volunteer responsibilities include raising funds, registering runners, building spectator stands, operating refreshment stations, regulating traffic, offering first aid, tracking and publishing results and cleaning up.

    Volunteers at major races go beyond first aid, and prepare volunteers to treat dehydration, heat stroke, low sodium levels and orthopedic injuries. They also provide a sweep medical bus to pick up runners who cannot finish the race.

    More than the run

    Sometimes the most important role a person can play in a marathon runner’s life is to tell them when there’s a higher priority requiring attention than the marathon itself. As a dietitian, Baumann says she encounters young women who struggle with nutrition issues that come to light when they start to train.

    “My job is twofold: helping people fuel for performance, feel their best and finish their race strong but also a lot that comes with it for many people is healing their relationship with food,” she says.

    Marathons get their name from the Greek legend of the messenger Pheidippides, who ran 40 kilometres from the town of Marathon to Athens to announce Greece’s victory over Persia in a battle on the plain of Marathon.

    Today a marathon runner’s successful finish is celebrated by many people who love the sport of long-distance running because its message is that solidarity wins.

    Julia Yarkoni 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. Marathon runners rely on family and experts to succeed, while races rely on passionate volunteers – https://theconversation.com/marathon-runners-rely-on-family-and-experts-to-succeed-while-races-rely-on-passionate-volunteers-252581

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The top Democrats leading the fight against Trump’s agenda

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Fernando Pizarro, Lecturer, Department of Journalism, City St. George’s, University of London, City St George’s, University of London

    The first five months of Donald Trump’s second presidency have been brutal for the Democratic party, which has been almost completely unable to stop his aggressive agenda. In March, CNN polling showed the favourability rating for the Democrats at just 29% – a record low in CNN polls dating back to 1992.

    The problem with the Democratic party “isn’t a lack of talent”, says Federico de Jesús, a Democratic strategist and spokesman for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign who I interviewed for this story. It is a “problem of vision and strategy”, he argues.

    “A lot of people, in theory, agree with the Democrats on a lot of issues. But they don’t necessarily feel comfortable with the direction the party is taking.” De Jesús told me that the Democrats allowed themselves to become identified by “woke issues” by many voters who abandoned them in November.

    However, the Democrats now have some reasons to celebrate. In early April, a Democratic-backed judge called Susan Crawford secured a seat in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. This kept liberal control of the state’s highest court intact. And a Reuters/Ipsos poll released a few weeks later showed that only 37% of US voters approve of Trump’s handling of the economy.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    As a Washington political correspondent for almost two decades, I have witnessed how the parties changed the guard after painful election cycles. This time, in the absence of clear leaders, the challenge is quite high for the Democrats.

    But who are the Democrats positioning themselves to lead the struggle against Trump’s policies? The acts of defiance are coming from two fronts: lawmakers in Congress and governors.

    Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has predicted that the Democrats will win back control of the Senate after the 2026 midterm elections. “The electorate will desert the Republican candidates who embraced Trump in an overwhelming way”, he said on April 23.

    Others, like California senator Adam Schiff and Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin, are using tactics like holding town halls in strong Republican districts to rally the opposition. Michigan congressman Shri Thanedar even filed articles of impeachment against Trump on April 28, but top Democrats shot down the effort as impractical.

    At the same time, House of Representatives minority leader Hakeem Jeffries is facing an intra-party effort to unseat many long-time lawmakers in solid Democratic districts. David Hogg, vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee, is pledging US$20 million (£15 million) to end a culture of “seniority politics” which allows “asleep at the wheel” lawmakers to stay in office.

    But it is New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who has been stealing the headlines. She is setting fundraising records, preparing for an effort to challenge Schumer in a New York senatorial primary in 2028. Surveys this early are rarely predictive, but an April head-to-head poll has Ocasio-Cortez leading Schumer by double digits.

    Three Democrat governors are standing out at present: Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, Minnesota’s Tim Walz and California’s Gavin Newsom.

    Shapiro is very popular with voters in his crucial swing state, and gets good marks even from Republicans on his bipartisan record. Walz was Kamala Harris’s running mate in November’s election, and his campaign performance was well received by his party. Walz is an obvious contender to run for the White House in 2028.

    But Newsom is probably the most notable of the three. While he’s been critical of his party, telling the Hill newspaper on April 21 that Democrats haven’t performed a thorough autopsy of what led to the loss in November, he is seen as someone who can address Republican voters well.

    A second tier of governors include Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, whose soft criticism of the Trump administration’s tariff regime saw Trump praise her for doing an “excellent job”. She is joined by Maryland’s Wes Moore, who is young and popular in his state, and JB Pritzker of Illinois.

    Pritzker called for “mass mobilisations and disruption” against Trump at a Democratic event in New Hampshire in late April. “These governors need to stand out”, said de Jesús, “either by fighting against Trump, or either [by] achieving something memorable.”

    Harris had largely kept a low profile since November’s election. But on April 30 she sharply criticised Trump’s first 100 days in office during a speech in San Francisco. She may decide to enter the race for California governor in the summer of 2025.

    Dark horse leader

    There could also be a dark horse leader waiting in the wings: Rahm Emanuel. As former Chicago mayor, Illinois congressman, Obama and Bill Clinton aide and US ambassador to Japan, he is considered a political heavyweight.

    Emanuel has hinted he may again run for public office, while criticising the party’s focus on gender issues and not on “kitchen table” issues as reasons for November’s defeat.

    Progressives chafe at the idea of dialling down the talk about certain policies, such as gender and identity issues. But both Newsom and Emanuel are among those suggesting that the focus should instead shift to defending changes that most voters can relate to.

    At the moment, the party still lacks a clear leader and direction to recover from the 2024 defeat. Newsom, for instance, told the Hill that he doesn’t “know what the party is”. “I’m still struggling with that,” he added.

    According to de Jesús, “people don’t necessarily want someone to just hate Trump, but to identify the issues voters care about and co-opt that populist message.”

    Fernando Pizarro 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. The top Democrats leading the fight against Trump’s agenda – https://theconversation.com/the-top-democrats-leading-the-fight-against-trumps-agenda-254869

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Golden Dome: what Trump should learn from Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ missile defence system plan

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Powell, Teaching Fellow in Strategic and Air Power Studies, University of Portsmouth

    Donald Trump has unveiled plans for a new “next-generation” missile defence system which he says will by “capable even of intercepting missiles launched from the other side of the world, or launched from space”. The US president says “Golden Dome”, which is reportedly partly inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome system that protects the country from missile attacks, will be operational by the end of his current four-year term of office.

    But critics say that it’s much harder to design a defence system to protect a land mass the size of the United States. This is particularly the case in an era characterised by the threat from hypersonic missiles, such as those used by Russia against Ukraine, as well as attacks from space.

    Ever since the first aerial attacks on civilian populations, there have been increasing calls to provide systems that can defend and destroy the potential for an adversary to attack people, governments and infrastructure.

    This developed from relatively basic defence systems, such as those employed by the UK from 1917 to protect London and the south-east of England from attack during the first world war, which developed further to provide a relatively large degree of protection during the Battle of Britain in the summer and autumn of 1940.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    During the cold war, which followed the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, research accelerated globally into ways of providing greater protection against nuclear attack. The most eye-catching of these ideas was the announcement by Ronald Reagan in 1983 of plans to develop a massive (and hugely expensive) land and space-based missile defence system.

    The project, officially called the Strategic Defence Initiative quickly became known colloquially – if slightly mockingly – as “Star Wars”.

    The concept behind the missile defence system was that it would provide a way of effectively making nuclear weapons obsolete. Through the application of a defensive system that incorporated both land and space-based missiles, it was believed that any nuclear warhead fired would be destroyed before it was able to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere.

    This would not only prevent intercontinental ballistic missiles from striking their intended target, but their destruction so high above the Earth would mean that they would not pose a threat in terms of nuclear radiation and fallout.

    It’s important to note that what was announced by Reagan in March 1983 was not about the development, construction or application of an actual defensive system. It was about funding research into the technologies that would be required for such a system.

    Reagan claimed this was a move to create a more peaceful world by making nuclear weapons effectively obsolete. But it was certainly not seen this way in Moscow.

    It was also something of a half truth. The move should be seen within the wider context of cold war relations and developments. The Reagan administration was seeking to bring the Soviet Union to the negotiating table to discuss reductions in strategic weapons.

    By developing a defensive system that would make strategic nuclear weapons almost obsolete, it was hoped this would force the hand of the Soviets and effectively compel them to agree to talks.

    The ‘Star Wars’ era: Ronald Reagan hoped his planned missile defence system would force the USSR to the negotiating table. He was right.
    Yuryi Abramochkin/RIA Novosti archive., CC BY

    But at the same time, as far as the decision-makers in the Kremlin were concerned, such a system – if developed and deployed – would give the United States a colossal strategic advantage. By the mid-1980s, it was highly unlikely that the Soviets could ever afford the investment in research and development and production capabilities to design their own system. This would mean that the Soviet Union was now highly vulnerable to a nuclear attack, while the US would be protected.

    This would place the United States in a similar position to that which it had enjoyed between 1945 and 1949, when it was the only nation that had the ability launch nuclear weapons. The theory of mutually assured destruction would fall almost overnight, meaning that the US had very little to fear from launching a nuclear attack, as any Soviet response would be futile.

    Given the potential for nuclear blackmail by the all-powerful US, it might cause the Kremlin to consider launching a pre-emptive strike against the US before such a system could be developed or implemented. Rather than making the world a safer place and diminishing the place of nuclear weapons, the world would become more dangerous.

    Pie in the sky?

    The Strategic Defence Initiative never really got off the ground. The initial mockery from large parts of the public of the US hid many real challenges to the development of such a defensive system. The research and development aspect alone came with a very large price tag. This was largely out of step with Reagan’s ideas about small government and limited public spending.

    In order to fund such a programme, money would have to be diverted from other domestic and social programmes, such as health and education. Despite the cold war context, this may well have risked unrest and protest from large swaths of the US population.

    The new technologies that were supposed to be developed as a part of this initiative were untested. It became evident that the only real way to test the efficacy and capability would be to expose the world to a nuclear attack and hope that the theoretical concepts that had been developed actually worked in practice.

    The Soviet Union also found ways of countering the potential developments that may emerge from the Strategic Defence Initiative, making the system almost redundant before it had begun.

    Proposed defence systems, like the Strategic Defence Initiative or the Golden Dome, can appear to be a panacea to defensive worries caused by heavily armed adversaries. Announcements about their development can cause global headlines and speculation about what this means for relations between nations and the international system.

    Take a step back from the US president’s hype, however, and it’s clear that Golden Dome will be hugely expensive and challenging to operate. Moreover it will require significant capabilities that do not yet exist and have yet to be tested operationally.

    Matthew Powell 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. Golden Dome: what Trump should learn from Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ missile defence system plan – https://theconversation.com/golden-dome-what-trump-should-learn-from-reagans-star-wars-missile-defence-system-plan-257372

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canada’s skills crisis is growing — here’s how we can fix it

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Stephen Murgatroyd, Instructor, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta

    Canada needs to rethink how to prepare Canadians for the workforce. (Shutterstock)

    Canada is facing a significant skills shortage. According to recent data, 77 per cent of Canadian businesses surveyed say they are unable to find suitably skilled candidates for the jobs they have available.

    Even among those who apply with relevant skills, 44 per cent don’t have the required level of proficiency to secure employment. At present, there are about 700,000 job vacancies across the country.

    This mismatch persists despite Canada having one of its largest-ever graduating classes — nearly 360,000 students from colleges, universities and trade schools.

    As labour shortages deepen across sectors, the disconnect between formal education and real-world job requirements is becoming harder to ignore.

    Skills shortage will likely worsen

    Canada’s skills shortage is expected to worsen in the coming years. Between now and 2028, 700,000 workers in the skilled trades are due to retire.

    Canada’s antiquated apprenticeship system is struggling to produce enough workers to fill this gap. It is slow, outdated and has low completion rates: just 32 per cent of male and 35 per cent of female candidates complete their training.

    Some employers are losing confidence in using qualifications as a basis for hiring.
    (Shutterstock)

    Completing an apprenticeship can take up to four years in Canada, while many other nations have much higher completion rates in two years or less.

    It is not just trades that Canada has challenges with. If current trends continue, Canada is projected to face a shortage of 100,000 nurses by 2030. Significant shortages are also expected in technology-related positions, construction engineering and K-12 education, where demand for teachers and school administrators is rising.

    Meanwhile, rising demand is expected for jobs related to artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing and supply chain management.

    Rethinking how to prepare people for work

    Some employers are losing confidence in using qualifications as a basis for hiring. Increasingly, they feel degrees and diplomas don’t adequately prepare people for work.

    As a result, some organizations have moved to skills-based or competency-based hiring where candidates share skills portfolios and work testimonials to secure a position. As of 2024, approximately 80 per cent of Canadian companies have implemented some form of skills-based hiring practices, up from 74 per cent in 2023.



    Read more:
    Employers should use skill-based hiring to find hidden talent and address labour challenges

    Other companies, like Shopify, take candidates from high school and put them through custom programs designed to ensure they have the skills needed to work in a particular organization or industry.

    Colleges and universities have long been seen as the primary pipelines for skilled labour. But as employer expectations evolve, Canada needs to reconsider the role these institutions play in producing skilled workers.

    Simply expanding existing programs or opening new programs will not solve the underlying problem. What’s needed is a fundamental rethinking of how we prepare Canadians for the workforce.

    5 steps Canada should take

    Canada’s new government, in collaboration with provinces, territories and industry, needs to pursue a five-pronged strategy to address the country’s deepening skills crisis:

    1. Modernize the apprenticeship system.

    Canada must transition from a traditional, time-based apprenticeship model to a flexible, competency-based system. Instead of being tied to rigid journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios and multi-year timelines, learners should be able to demonstrate their skills on demand anywhere, anytime. The goal should be to reduce completion times to two years or less.

    Learning should be accessible through multiple formats, including workplace mentorship, YouTube tutorials, boot camps, micro-credentials and virtual labs. What matters is not where learning takes place, but whether a learner can demonstrate competence.

    Learners should be able to demonstrate their skills on demand anywhere, anytime.
    (Shutterstock)

    2. Accelerate skills recognition through micro-credentials.

    Canada should fast-track the adoption of micro-learning, stackable micro-credentials and competency-based certification. Micro-credentials are short, focused learning experiences that recognize specific skills or knowledge.

    In fields like IT, project management and supply chain management, many professionals succeed without formal academic degrees, instead relying on industry-recognized certifications.

    This model must expand into other sectors, especially health care, manufacturing and finance, where skills-based hiring could address labour shortages.

    3. Recognize informal and experiential learning.

    Millions of Canadians develop valuable skills through informal, self-directed and work-based learning.

    Yet Canada’s prior learning assessment and recognition systems, which convert informal learning into certified learning, remains fragmented, under-utilized and overly bureaucratic.

    Canada needs a nationally coherent, on-demand competency-based assessment system. Certified assessors should be able to validate individuals’ skills and link them to job profiles, occupational standards and credentials. This is not just an equity issue, but is an economic imperative. Other countries are much better at this than Canada is.

    4. Shorten and re-design post-secondary programs.

    The misalignment between program outcomes and labour market demands is well-documented. Closing this gap should be a top priority for post-secondary reform.

    Many college and university programs could be made shorter, more agile and more aligned with workforce needs — especially programs linked to workforce needs and skills in demand.

    Competency-based, work-integrated learning models that are designed with industry and delivered in two- or three-year formats could dramatically increase job readiness.

    5. Incentivize employer investment in upskilling and reskilling.

    Canada needs a stronger incentive framework for continuous learning. Canada’s training credit — a refundable tax credit that helps offset the cost of eligible training fees — helps some individuals, but employers still view training as a cost rather than a driver of productivity, retention and competitiveness.

    A new approach should include tax incentives for employers and employees investing in learning; co-funded, industry-led training partnerships; industry-sponsored micro-credentials; and public recognition for employers who demonstrate leadership in workforce development.

    Canada cannot meet today’s workforce challenges with outdated systems and thinking. Doing more of the same and expecting different results is no longer an option. What is needed is evidence-informed and future-focused reforms that prioritize skills, flexibility and inclusion.

    Stephen Murgatroyd 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. Canada’s skills crisis is growing — here’s how we can fix it – https://theconversation.com/canadas-skills-crisis-is-growing-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-256864

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –