NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-Evening Report: The government plans to regulate carbon capture technologies – but who will be the regulating agency?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Barry Barton, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

    The Icelandic company Carbfix has developed a technology to store carbon dioxide. Shutterstock/Oksana Bali

    Newly released documents add more detail to the government’s plans for a regulatory framework to enable carbon capture and storage.

    But they show indecision on two key matters – the legal framework and the agency that would be in charge.

    The plan relates primarily to conventional carbon capture and storage technologies, which remove carbon dioxide from an industrial gas flow and dispose of it deep underground.

    It also covers some methods of carbon dioxide removal, an emerging but as yet commercially untested suite of technologies such as enhanced rock weathering, bio-energy capture and direct air capture.

    The latter technologies are not predicated on fossil fuel consumption and could operate in many different situations.

    Neither kind of carbon removal is a simple answer to the climate challenge and the priority remains on cutting emissions. But we need to have regulatory frameworks in place for both reduction and removal technologies of all kinds, and soon.

    Earning credits from emissions trading

    Both types of technologies will benefit from the government’s decision to allow companies to get credits in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for the disposal of carbon dioxide from any source. Credits will not be tied to any one technology, according to the released policy discussion documents.

    It’s also a positive development that an operator can get credits as a separate removal activity, not merely as a reduction of an existing emissions liability (although official advice was initially against separate credits). This allows for diversity in the players and the systems for removals.

    The government has decided it will assume liability for any carbon dioxide leaks from geological storage, but only after verification that fluids in the subsurface are behaving as expected after closure, and no sooner than 15 years after closure.

    Leaks this long after injection are unlikely, but we nevertheless need strong regulation, financial assurance to guarantee remedial action and clear liability rules.

    Companies will be able to earn credits for the permanent disposal of carbon dioxide.
    Shutterstock/VectorMine

    The government also states ETS credits will only be available for removals that can be recognised internationally against New Zealand’s commitments to cut emissions. This would apply only to geological storage but not deep-ocean deposition or rock weathering.

    But that’s not quite right. The general international rules already allow the inclusion in a national greenhouse gas inventory of removals from any process. Detailed methodologies for carbon dioxide removal are likely to become available within the next few years.

    With change underway, New Zealand’s new regime should allow a wide range of removal methods to receive credits.

    A new regulatory regime

    The documents acknowledge that New Zealand needs a broader regulatory regime, beyond the ETS, to cover the entire process of carbon dioxide removal. The suitability of a disposal site must be verified, a detailed geological characterisation is required and the project design and operation need to be approved.

    Approval is also required for closure and post-closure plans, and systematic monitoring. Monitoring is everything; it must be accurate and verifiable but also cost effective. The operator will have to pay for monitoring for decades after site closure.

    In agreeing on these features, the government is following the examples of many countries overseas, including Australia, Canada, the UK and the EU.

    However, it is intriguing that the government hasn’t decided where this new regime should sit in the statute book, and who should manage it. Much of the apparently relevant text in the documents has been redacted.

    Given that carbon dioxide would be stored underground, the Crown Minerals Act is one possibility. But this legislation is all about extraction, not disposal. Although the New Zealand petroleum and minerals unit at the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment has expertise in regulating subsurface operations, it focuses largely on oil and gas, not on innovative climate projects.

    The Resource Management Act certainly provides a regulatory approval regime, but it is awaiting reform and would need much more than the currently proposed changes to deal with carbon capture and storage or removal properly. So would legislation covering activities within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone.

    Indeed each act would require a whole new part to be added, with its own principles and procedures. There is a lot to be said for a standalone new act, in a form that would fit with the emerging Natural Environment Act that will replace the Resource Management Act.

    The new legislation and regulation regime could be administered by the Environmental Protection Authority, which is already involved in Resource Management Act call-ins and fast-track approvals, the legislation covering the exclusive economic zone and the ETS.

    One can only guess there might be tensions between contending factions in government. What we should ask for is a legislative and institutional arrangement that allows carbon capture and storage or removal technologies to evolve and grow without being a mere offshoot of the oil and gas industry or any other existing sector.

    As part of our efforts to reduce emissions, we must make sure all kinds of removal technologies are available that truly suit New Zealand.

    Barry Barton is part of the project “Derisking Carbon Dioxide Removal at Megatonne Scale in Aotearoa” which is funded by the MBIE’s Endeavour Fund. In the past, he has received funding from MBIE and the gas industry for research on CCS legal issues.
    He is a director of the Environmental Defence Society.

    – ref. The government plans to regulate carbon capture technologies – but who will be the regulating agency? – https://theconversation.com/the-government-plans-to-regulate-carbon-capture-technologies-but-who-will-be-the-regulating-agency-254696

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What Liberal Mark Carney’s projected election win in Canada means for Europe

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Katerina Sviderska, PhD Candidate in Slavonic Studies, University of Cambridge

    Just months ago, Canada’s Conservatives were leading the polls, surfing the wave of radical right ideas and rhetoric sweeping across the globe. But with the projected election victory of Mark Carney’s Liberal Party, Canada now stands out as a liberal anchor in a fractured West.

    This election may not only shape Canada’s domestic trajectory, but also carries significant implications for its international partnerships amid rising geopolitical uncertainty.

    As some European countries and the United States head towards isolationism, authoritarianism and turn to the East — even flirting with Russia — Canada’s continued Liberal leadership reinforces its position as a key ally for the European Union. Carney’s centrist and pro-EU attitude provides stability and relief for Europeans.

    From defence to trade and climate, Canada and the EU share deep economic and strategic ties. With a Liberal government, these connections will strengthen, offering both sides what they need the most: a reliable, like-minded partner at a time of transatlantic unpredictability.

    What does Carney’s victory mean specifically for the Canada-EU relationship?

    Trade as a strategic anchor

    Carney’s election offers new momentum for Canada-EU collaboration. His “blue liberalism” brings Canada ideologically closer to Europe’s current leadership — from Emmanuel Macron’s centrist France to the Christian Democratic Union-led coalition in Germany — providing fertile ground for pragmatic co-operation.

    Trade remains the foundation of the Canada-EU relationship, and both sides should aim to build on it. At the heart of this partnership is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which has increased EU-Canada trade by 65 per cent since 2017.

    European Council President António Costa has called the deal a success story providing clear proof “trade agreements are clearly better than trade tariffs.”

    As the U.S. speeds toward toward economic nationalism, CETA has become more than a commercial agreement — it’s a strategic anchor in the global liberal order. One of the Liberal government’s early priorities is likely to consolidate and strengthen CETA. In doing so, Canada can position itself as an ambitious partner, ready to seize new opportunities as European countries seek to reduce their reliance on the American market.

    Climate and energy: A balanced agenda

    Climate and energy, too, offer new opportunities for co-operation. Both Canada and the EU are navigating the tensions between pursuing ambitious decarbonization goals and managing economic and inflationary pressures. After scrapping Canada’s carbon tax on his first day in office, Carney has already hinted at a more pragmatic environmental stance.

    While pledging to maintain key climate policies — including the emissions cap on oil and gas — Carney’s government may recalibrate Canada’s approach to energy. This would mirror shifts among some European allies’ climate policies.

    This evolving transatlantic consensus — less about abandoning climate goals, more about making them economically viable — paves the way for closer co-operation based on a common goal: bolstering economic competitiveness while maintaining environmental credibility.

    Both Carney and the EU view the investment in new technologies as the path forward.

    As Europe accelerates its green agenda and implements new sustainability rules, only countries with strong environmental standards qualify as long-term partners. Canada, provided it stays the course on climate policies, is well-positioned to be a key partner in Europe’s green transition.

    Transatlantic defence co-operation

    Beyond trade and energy, defence co-operation between Canada and the EU is expected to surge. A key priority for the new Liberal government is to finally reach NATO’s benchmark of spending two per cent of gross domestic product on defence, a longstanding commitment that has eluded previous administrations.



    Read more:
    What does Donald Trump’s NATO posturing mean for Canada?

    This signal of rearmament reflects not only alignment with NATO expectations but also a broader understanding that liberal democracies must be prepared to defend themselves. Nowhere is this more pressing than in Ukraine, the epicentre of Europe’s geopolitical storm.

    Canada has been among the most reliable supporters of Ukraine since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion, aligning itself with Europe’s most committed nations — France, Poland, the Baltics and, increasingly, Germany.

    But as threats evolve, the battlefield also extends beyond Ukraine’s frontlines. Hybrid attacks — cyber, disinformation campaigns and foreign interference in democratic processes — now wash up on all shores. Canada’s National Cyber Threat Assessment 2025–26 identifies state-sponsored cyber operations as one of the most serious threats to democratic stability, particularly from Russia and China.



    Read more:
    Foreign interference threats in Canada’s federal election are both old and new

    In strengthening its defence collaboration, Ottawa is hoping to get a seat in the fight against autocracies. The question is no longer whether to engage, but how to lead in this era of layered and compounding threats coming from rivals like Russia and China — and now from the U.S., a historical Canadian ally.

    Under Carney’s leadership, Canada is likely to pursue a pragmatic and globally engaged liberalism definitively aligned with Europe. As Canada and the EU are both looking for reliable allies to weather the storm, this renewed western alliance could solidify around Ottawa and Brussels — anchored in shared democratic values and pragmatic leadership.

    Katerina Sviderska receives funding from Fonds de Recherche du Québec and the Gates Cambridge Foundation.

    Leandre Benoit receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. What Liberal Mark Carney’s projected election win in Canada means for Europe – https://theconversation.com/what-liberal-mark-carneys-projected-election-win-in-canada-means-for-europe-254775

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Game change Canadian election: Mark Carney projected to have lead Liberals to their fourth consecutive win

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Fiona MacDonald, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Northern British Columbia

    Canada’s 2025 federal election will be remembered as a game-changer. Liberal Leader Mark Carney is projected to have pulled off a dramatic reversal of political fortunes after convincing voters he was the best candidate to fight annexation threats from United States President Donald Trump.

    Only four months ago, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had a 25-point lead in public opinion polls and a fairly secure path to victory.

    Yet Poilievre’s lead soon vanished due to shifting voter sentiments defined less by the official campaign period and more by the months that preceded it. Justin Trudeau’s early January resignation announcement and Carney’s confirmation that he was officially in the Liberal leadership race dramatically changed the political landscape.



    Read more:
    After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election

    Within a matter of weeks, Liberal support surged when Carney became party leader and Trump continued to make threats about Canada becoming a 51st American state — and to levy punishing on-again, off-again tariffs against the country.

    The party went from being 20 percentage points behind the Conservatives to overtaking them, putting the party on track to secure its fourth consecutive victory. A shift described by longtime pollster Frank Graves as “unprecedented.”

    Poilievre’s messaging

    The emerging “Canada strong” and “elbows up” narratives, linked to the widespread anti-Trump sentiment, proved a major advantage for the Liberals, who made the most out of this political gift.

    This shift, alongside Carney’s elimination of the carbon tax, left Poilievre on the back foot as his longstanding messaging on Trudeau and his “axe the tax” slogan became largely irrelevant.



    Read more:
    Who really killed Canada’s carbon tax? Friends and foes alike

    The impact of these shifts in electoral fortunes extended beyond the two main parties. As the election became increasingly a two-party race between the Liberals and Conservatives, the smaller parties struggled for relevance.

    Election campaign polling and early results indicated steep losses for the NDP, with Leader Jagmeet Singh’s own seat in Burnaby, B.C., under threat. This could be due to voters on the left responding to calls to vote strategically to prevent Conservative victories in various ridings.

    The Bloc Québecois also lost ground, as did the Green Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). Neither the Greens nor the PPC fielded full slates of candidates or participated in the leaders’ debates and therefore played comparatively limited roles in this election.

    Advance voting in a gendered election

    Another notable feature of this election was the record advance voting turnout, which surged to 7.3 million Canadians, up sharply from 5.8 million in 2021.

    Early voting has now become a central part of party campaign strategy, with campaigns “getting out the vote” at every opportunity, not just on Election Day. This trend raises questions not only about whether overall turnout will rise, but also whether party platforms remain as influential given so many votes were cast before all parties released their platforms.

    While many Canadians take in elections with a focus on party leaders and seat counts, there are other important ways to contemplate election outcomes in terms of inclusion and voice. What does this election tell us about gender and diversity representation in Canada’s Parliament?

    This was a deeply gendered election. The major party leaders are all men, with the exception of Elizabeth May, the Green Party co-leader.

    Preliminary candidate data showed a decrease in the number of women candidates compared to 2021.

    The NDP nominated the highest proportion of women candidates — the majority of its candidates are women — and fielded the most diverse slate of candidates in terms of Indigenous people, Black people, racialized people and LGBTQ+ candidates. But the party’s dramatic losses mean these gains will not translate into more diverse representation in Parliament.

    Furthermore, one of Carney’s first actions as prime minister was to eliminate the sex-balanced cabinet and to reduce the size of the cabinet. He eliminated the Ministry of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) as well as ministerial portfolios focused on youth, official languages, diversity, inclusion, disability and seniors.

    These decisions reverse previous efforts taken to institutionalize gender and diversity leadership in Canada’s Parliament.

    Party platforms also reflected diverging approaches when it came to women. The Conservative platform only mentioned women four times, and three of those mentions were in the context of opposition to transgender rights.



    Read more:
    Pierre Poilievre’s ‘More Boots, Less Suits’ election strategy held little appeal to women

    The role of young working-class men

    Polling also revealed intersections of generation, gender and class are increasingly relevant. Like the last federal election, young working-class men are increasingly drawn to the Conservatives. This trend appears to be driven less by fiscal conservatism and more by concerns about rapid social change, a trend also observed in the 2024 American presidential election.

    Many of these young men are expressing frustrations over housing affordability and job security, and what they view as the Liberal and NDP’s “woke culture,” which they view as eroding traditional values that have traditionally benefited men. In contrast, Canadian women of all ages continue to favour parties they view as more progressive — the Liberals and the NDP.

    Theoretical explanations for this include young men feeling left behind by the Liberals, while the Conservatives have seemingly figured out a way to connect with them.

    This may reflect campaign rhetoric about returning to traditional expectations and values around gender roles and men’s rights to well-paying jobs, an affordable home and taking care of their families.

    Electoral reform needed?

    In the aftermath of the election, there are avenues through which current gaps in representation can be addressed. Organizations like the United Nations’ Inter-parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, as well as gender and politics scholarship, propose various reforms to continue to strengthen diversity in Parliament.

    These reforms are understood to be essential for enhancing the legitimacy, responsiveness and effectiveness of Canada’s parliamentary system. Research on gender-and diversity-sensitive parliaments consistently shows that when legislative bodies reflect the diversity of the societies they govern, they are more likely to produce policies that are equitable, inclusive and trusted by the public.

    Overall, this Canadian election was characterized by transformative twists and turns that shed more light on important ongoing questions about representation and the potential need for democratic reform if Canadians want to avoid a two-party system.

    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. Game change Canadian election: Mark Carney projected to have lead Liberals to their fourth consecutive win – https://theconversation.com/game-change-canadian-election-mark-carney-projected-to-have-lead-liberals-to-their-fourth-consecutive-win-253721

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What Liberal Mark Carney’s Canadian projected election win means for Europe

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Katerina Sviderska, PhD Candidate in Slavonic Studies, University of Cambridge

    Just months ago, Canada’s Conservatives were leading the polls, surfing the wave of radical right ideas and rhetoric sweeping across the globe. But with the projected election victory of Mark Carney’s Liberal Party, Canada now stands out as a liberal anchor in a fractured West.

    This election may not only shape Canada’s domestic trajectory, but also carries significant implications for its international partnerships amid rising geopolitical uncertainty.

    As some European countries and the United States head towards isolationism, authoritarianism and turn to the East — even flirting with Russia — Canada’s continued Liberal leadership reinforces its position as a key ally for the European Union. Carney’s centrist and pro-EU attitude provides stability and relief for Europeans.

    From defence to trade and climate, Canada and the EU share deep economic and strategic ties. With a Liberal government, these connections will strengthen, offering both sides what they need the most: a reliable, like-minded partner at a time of transatlantic unpredictability.

    What does Carney’s victory mean specifically for the Canada-EU relationship?

    Trade as a strategic anchor

    Carney’s election offers new momentum for Canada-EU collaboration. His “blue liberalism” brings Canada ideologically closer to Europe’s current leadership — from Emmanuel Macron’s centrist France to the Christian Democratic Union-led coalition in Germany — providing fertile ground for pragmatic co-operation.

    Trade remains the foundation of the Canada-EU relationship, and both sides should aim to build on it. At the heart of this partnership is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which has increased EU-Canada trade by 65 per cent since 2017.

    European Council President António Costa has called the deal a success story providing clear proof “trade agreements are clearly better than trade tariffs.”

    As the U.S. speeds toward toward economic nationalism, CETA has become more than a commercial agreement — it’s a strategic anchor in the global liberal order. One of the Liberal government’s early priorities is likely to consolidate and strengthen CETA. In doing so, Canada can position itself as an ambitious partner, ready to seize new opportunities as European countries seek to reduce their reliance on the American market.

    Climate and energy: A balanced agenda

    Climate and energy, too, offer new opportunities for co-operation. Both Canada and the EU are navigating the tensions between pursuing ambitious decarbonization goals and managing economic and inflationary pressures. After scrapping Canada’s carbon tax on his first day in office, Carney has already hinted at a more pragmatic environmental stance.

    While pledging to maintain key climate policies — including the emissions cap on oil and gas — Carney’s government may recalibrate Canada’s approach to energy. This would mirror shifts among some European allies’ climate policies.

    This evolving transatlantic consensus — less about abandoning climate goals, more about making them economically viable — paves the way for closer co-operation based on a common goal: bolstering economic competitiveness while maintaining environmental credibility.

    Both Carney and the EU view the investment in new technologies as the path forward.

    As Europe accelerates its green agenda and implements new sustainability rules, only countries with strong environmental standards qualify as long-term partners. Canada, provided it stays the course on climate policies, is well-positioned to be a key partner in Europe’s green transition.

    Transatlantic defence co-operation

    Beyond trade and energy, defence co-operation between Canada and the EU is expected to surge. A key priority for the new Liberal government is to finally reach NATO’s benchmark of spending two per cent of gross domestic product on defence, a longstanding commitment that has eluded previous administrations.



    Read more:
    What does Donald Trump’s NATO posturing mean for Canada?

    This signal of rearmament reflects not only alignment with NATO expectations but also a broader understanding that liberal democracies must be prepared to defend themselves. Nowhere is this more pressing than in Ukraine, the epicentre of Europe’s geopolitical storm.

    Canada has been among the most reliable supporters of Ukraine since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion, aligning itself with Europe’s most committed nations — France, Poland, the Baltics and, increasingly, Germany.

    But as threats evolve, the battlefield also extends beyond Ukraine’s frontlines. Hybrid attacks — cyber, disinformation campaigns and foreign interference in democratic processes — now wash up on all shores. Canada’s National Cyber Threat Assessment 2025–26 identifies state-sponsored cyber operations as one of the most serious threats to democratic stability, particularly from Russia and China.



    Read more:
    Foreign interference threats in Canada’s federal election are both old and new

    In strengthening its defence collaboration, Ottawa is hoping to get a seat in the fight against autocracies. The question is no longer whether to engage, but how to lead in this era of layered and compounding threats coming from rivals like Russia and China — and now from the U.S., a historical Canadian ally.

    Under Carney’s leadership, Canada is likely to pursue a pragmatic and globally engaged liberalism definitively aligned with Europe. As Canada and the EU are both looking for reliable allies to weather the storm, this renewed western alliance could solidify around Ottawa and Brussels — anchored in shared democratic values and pragmatic leadership.

    Katerina Sviderska receives funding from Fonds de Recherche du Québec and the Gates Cambridge Foundation.

    Leandre Benoit receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. What Liberal Mark Carney’s Canadian projected election win means for Europe – https://theconversation.com/what-liberal-mark-carneys-canadian-projected-election-win-means-for-europe-254775

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How do the Coalition and Labor plans on housing differ – and what have they ignored?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

    Any doubts that Australia’s growing housing challenges would be a major focus of the federal election campaign have been dispelled over recent weeks.

    Both major parties announced strikingly ambitious housing initiatives as campaign centrepiece offers. So how do they compare?

    What’s the Coalition offering?

    The Coalition had already pledged several significant housing initiatives, should it form government. Among those, the biggest ticket item is the $5 billion program for enabling infrastructure to “unlock up to 500,000 new homes”.

    In the absence of underpinning detail, both the wording of this pledge and its alleged potential impact have generated some scepticism.

    Also announced well ahead of the campaign was the Coalition’s plan to allow first home buyers to draw down on their superannuation. They could withdraw up to $50,000 to help fund mortgage deposits.

    This proposal has attracted some qualified support. But it’s been rejected by most of Australia’s top economists. This reflects concerns the measure could prove highly inflationary. It also risks a net loss for scheme participants if devalued retirement savings outweigh the benefit of accelerated access to home ownership.

    Likewise, the Coalition’s newly unveiled plan to allow mortgage interests for first home buyers to be tax-deductible has been fiercely criticised for its likely inflationary and regressive effects.

    Such arrangements are novel in Australia, but exist in some other countries. These include the Netherlands, where their impact has been recently described as damaging to both housing affordability and public finances.

    What’s Labor offering?

    Labor’s two new offers are to enable access to a mortgage with only a 5% deposit, and its $10 billion “Build to Sell” program.

    As a demand-side instrument, the first of these could have some inflationary impact. But given the modest nature of the assistance provided, and that it only expands the existing Home Guarantee Scheme from its current maximum annual quota of 50,000 to an expected take-up of around 80,000, this is likely to be limited.

    The Build to Sell plan would see collaboration with state and territory governments to commission 100,000 new homes in eight years. These would be for first home buyers only and, likely, for cost-price sale.

    In further details of the plan, released just days out from polling day, Labor says the plan would be progressed partly via $2 billion in concessional loans to the states.

    The whole build-to-sell idea revives the practice of the 1950s and 1960s where, in addition to constructing public housing for rent, state governments commissioned homes for sale. This contributed to the rapid rise in home ownership during that period.

    As a supply-side measure, the new plan builds on the 2022 National Housing Accord. The accord aims to expand overall housing industry output to 1.2 million new homes in the five years to 2029.

    Much about the Build to Sell plan has yet to be revealed. But from what we know, it looks like a bold initiative in challenging conventional modern thinking about the proper limits of direct state involvement in supplying a commodity largely provided through the market.

    By expanding overall housing production, it could help in slightly moderating prices market-wide, as well as benefiting the homebuyers directly involved.

    One-eyed agendas

    When it comes to helping first home buyers, both parties have put forth some ambitious new propositions. But social housing and homelessness pledges have been glaringly absent from their proposals.

    Neither Labor nor the Coalition has announced any significant new initiative to relieve rental stress at the lower end of the housing market, affecting millions of Australians. Measures that might, at least indirectly, help stem the rising tide of homelessness that now sees more than 10,000 newly homeless people being taken on by support agencies every month.

    Given its numerous initiatives to increase assistance to low-income and otherwise disadvantaged renters already enacted since 2022, Labor has a somewhat stronger excuse here.

    But while Albanese government measures, such as increased rent assistance, have eased the situation for some hard-pressed tenants, many other measures will only start to help in the next term of parliament.

    That’s especially true for the Housing Australia Future Fund and all of Labor’s other post-2022 federal programs to expand social and affordable housing construction. Pledged commitments during the current parliament should add 55,000 new social and affordable homes to the national portfolio.

    In combination with the Build to Sell initiative, this would see state-commissioned or otherwise funded housing construction perhaps equating to as much as 10% of all home-building later this decade. While short of the 16% achieved in the 1945-70 period, that would be a giant increase over the 1-2% typically recorded during the 2010s.



    Read more:
    Homelessness – the other housing crisis politicians aren’t talking about

    Even so, social and affordable housing investment so far pledged by Labor is limited in relation to demand. It’s estimated 640,000 households have an unmet need for social or affordable housing.

    The Coalition says if it wins the election, it would abolish the housing future fund. When asked how he would replace it, Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor declared it unnecessary because “there’s billions of dollars that [already] goes to the states for social housing”.

    While narrowly true, this is also disingenuous. The relatively modest funds referenced here – paid annually under the National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness – are entirely swallowed up in balancing the operating budgets of state public housing authorities.

    With public housing systems otherwise mired deep in deficits, it’s been decades since this funding stream has been sufficient to generate any new housing supply.

    In this respect, the Coalition’s 2025 housing pitch foreshadows a resumption of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison stance: nine years of federal subsidy drought for new social and affordable housing.

    What else is missing?

    Many have also criticised the recent major party offers as ignoring the overdue need for fundamental housing tax reform.

    That’s true for Labor. But the Coalition’s pitch on mortgage interest would, in fact, amount to a major property tax reset.

    Unfortunately, though, this so-called “negative gearing for first home buyers” would pile yet another damaging “market distortion” on top of all our existing property ownership tax breaks.

    These concessions have, over decades, contributed to today’s housing affordability problem, as their value is capitalised into higher prices.

    As observed by researcher Peter Mares, this new Coalition foray only goes to shine an even brighter light on the rational case to confront that problem head-on.

    Hal Pawson receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and Crisis UK. He is a part-time unpaid advisor to Senator David Pocock.

    – ref. How do the Coalition and Labor plans on housing differ – and what have they ignored? – https://theconversation.com/how-do-the-coalition-and-labor-plans-on-housing-differ-and-what-have-they-ignored-253337

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Game change Canadian election: Mark Carney projected to have lead Liberals to their fourth consecutive win

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona MacDonald, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Northern British Columbia

    Canada’s 2025 federal election will be remembered as a game-changer. Liberal Leader Mark Carney is projected to have pulled off a dramatic reversal of political fortunes after convincing voters he was the best candidate to fight annexation threats from United States President Donald Trump.

    Only four months ago, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had a 25-point lead in public opinion polls and a fairly secure path to victory.

    Yet Poilievre’s lead soon vanished due to shifting voter sentiments defined less by the official campaign period and more by the months that preceded it. Justin Trudeau’s early January resignation announcement and Carney’s confirmation that he was officially in the Liberal leadership race dramatically changed the political landscape.



    Read more:
    After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election

    Within a matter of weeks, Liberal support surged when Carney became party leader and Trump continued to make threats about Canada becoming a 51st American state — and to levy punishing on-again, off-again tariffs against the country.

    The party went from being 20 percentage points behind the Conservatives to overtaking them, putting the party on track to secure its fourth consecutive victory. A shift described by longtime pollster Frank Graves as “unprecedented.”

    Poilievre’s messaging

    The emerging “Canada strong” and “elbows up” narratives, linked to the widespread anti-Trump sentiment, proved a major advantage for the Liberals, who made the most out of this political gift.

    This shift, alongside Carney’s elimination of the carbon tax, left Poilievre on the back foot as his longstanding messaging on Trudeau and his “axe the tax” slogan became largely irrelevant.



    Read more:
    Who really killed Canada’s carbon tax? Friends and foes alike

    The impact of these shifts in electoral fortunes extended beyond the two main parties. As the election became increasingly a two-party race between the Liberals and Conservatives, the smaller parties struggled for relevance.

    Election campaign polling and early results indicated steep losses for the NDP, with Leader Jagmeet Singh’s own seat in Burnaby, B.C., under threat. This could be due to voters on the left responding to calls to vote strategically to prevent Conservative victories in various ridings.

    The Bloc Québecois also lost ground, as did the Green Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). Neither the Greens nor the PPC fielded full slates of candidates or participated in the leaders’ debates and therefore played comparatively limited roles in this election.

    Advance voting in a gendered election

    Another notable feature of this election was the record advance voting turnout, which surged to 7.3 million Canadians, up sharply from 5.8 million in 2021.

    Early voting has now become a central part of party campaign strategy, with campaigns “getting out the vote” at every opportunity, not just on Election Day. This trend raises questions not only about whether overall turnout will rise, but also whether party platforms remain as influential given so many votes were cast before all parties released their platforms.

    While many Canadians take in elections with a focus on party leaders and seat counts, there are other important ways to contemplate election outcomes in terms of inclusion and voice. What does this election tell us about gender and diversity representation in Canada’s Parliament?

    This was a deeply gendered election. The major party leaders are all men, with the exception of Elizabeth May, the Green Party co-leader.

    Preliminary candidate data showed a decrease in the number of women candidates compared to 2021.

    The NDP nominated the highest proportion of women candidates — the majority of its candidates are women — and fielded the most diverse slate of candidates in terms of Indigenous people, Black people, racialized people and LGBTQ+ candidates. But the party’s dramatic losses mean these gains will not translate into more diverse representation in Parliament.

    Furthermore, one of Carney’s first actions as prime minister was to eliminate the sex-balanced cabinet and to reduce the size of the cabinet. He eliminated the Ministry of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) as well as ministerial portfolios focused on youth, official languages, diversity, inclusion, disability and seniors.

    These decisions reverse previous efforts taken to institutionalize gender and diversity leadership in Canada’s Parliament.

    Party platforms also reflected diverging approaches when it came to women. The Conservative platform only mentioned women four times, and three of those mentions were in the context of opposition to transgender rights.



    Read more:
    Pierre Poilievre’s ‘More Boots, Less Suits’ election strategy held little appeal to women

    The role of young working-class men

    Polling also revealed intersections of generation, gender and class are increasingly relevant. Like the last federal election, young working-class men are increasingly drawn to the Conservatives. This trend appears to be driven less by fiscal conservatism and more by concerns about rapid social change, a trend also observed in the 2024 American presidential election.

    Many of these young men are expressing frustrations over housing affordability and job security, and what they view as the Liberal and NDP’s “woke culture,” which they view as eroding traditional values that have traditionally benefited men. In contrast, Canadian women of all ages continue to favour parties they view as more progressive — the Liberals and the NDP.

    Theoretical explanations for this include young men feeling left behind by the Liberals, while the Conservatives have seemingly figured out a way to connect with them.

    This may reflect campaign rhetoric about returning to traditional expectations and values around gender roles and men’s rights to well-paying jobs, an affordable home and taking care of their families.

    Electoral reform needed?

    In the aftermath of the election, there are avenues through which current gaps in representation can be addressed. Organizations like the United Nations’ Inter-parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, as well as gender and politics scholarship, propose various reforms to continue to strengthen diversity in Parliament.

    These reforms are understood to be essential for enhancing the legitimacy, responsiveness and effectiveness of Canada’s parliamentary system. Research on gender-and diversity-sensitive parliaments consistently shows that when legislative bodies reflect the diversity of the societies they govern, they are more likely to produce policies that are equitable, inclusive and trusted by the public.

    Overall, this Canadian election was characterized by transformative twists and turns that shed more light on important ongoing questions about representation and the potential need for democratic reform if Canadians want to avoid a two-party system.

    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. Game change Canadian election: Mark Carney projected to have lead Liberals to their fourth consecutive win – https://theconversation.com/game-change-canadian-election-mark-carney-projected-to-have-lead-liberals-to-their-fourth-consecutive-win-253721

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What Liberal Mark Carney’s Canadian election win means for Europe

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Katerina Sviderska, PhD Candidate in Slavonic Studies, University of Cambridge

    Just months ago, Canada’s Conservatives were leading the polls, surfing the wave of radical right ideas and rhetoric sweeping across the globe. But with the election victory of Mark Carney’s Liberal Party, Canada now stands out as a liberal anchor in a fractured West.

    This election not only shapes Canada’s domestic trajectory, but also carries significant implications for its international partnerships amid rising geopolitical uncertainty.

    As some European countries and the United States head towards isolationism, authoritarianism and turn to the East — even flirting with Russia — Canada’s continued Liberal leadership reinforces its position as a key ally for the European Union. Carney’s centrist and pro-EU attitude provides stability and relief for Europeans.

    From defence to trade and climate, Canada and the EU share deep economic and strategic ties. With a Liberal government, these connections will strengthen, offering both sides what they need the most: a reliable, like-minded partner at a time of transatlantic unpredictability.

    What does Carney’s victory mean specifically for the Canada-EU relationship?

    Trade as a strategic anchor

    Carney’s election offers new momentum for Canada-EU collaboration. His “blue liberalism” brings Canada ideologically closer to Europe’s current leadership — from Emmanuel Macron’s centrist France to the Christian Democratic Union-led coalition in Germany — providing fertile ground for pragmatic co-operation.

    Trade remains the foundation of the Canada-EU relationship, and both sides should aim to build on it. At the heart of this partnership is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which has increased EU-Canada trade by 65 per cent since 2017.

    European Council President António Costa has called the deal a success story providing clear proof “trade agreements are clearly better than trade tariffs.”

    As the U.S. speeds toward toward economic nationalism, CETA has become more than a commercial agreement — it’s a strategic anchor in the global liberal order. One of the Liberal government’s early priorities is likely to consolidate and strengthen CETA. In doing so, Canada can position itself as an ambitious partner, ready to seize new opportunities as European countries seek to reduce their reliance on the American market.

    Climate and energy: A balanced agenda

    Climate and energy, too, offer new opportunities for co-operation. Both Canada and the EU are navigating the tensions between pursuing ambitious decarbonization goals and managing economic and inflationary pressures. After scrapping Canada’s carbon tax on his first day in office, Carney has already hinted at a more pragmatic environmental stance.

    While pledging to maintain key climate policies — including the emissions cap on oil and gas — Carney’s government may recalibrate Canada’s approach to energy. This would mirror shifts among some European allies’ climate policies.

    This evolving transatlantic consensus — less about abandoning climate goals, more about making them economically viable — paves the way for closer co-operation based on a common goal: bolstering economic competitiveness while maintaining environmental credibility.

    Both Carney and the EU view the investment in new technologies as the path forward.

    As Europe accelerates its green agenda and implements new sustainability rules, only countries with strong environmental standards qualify as long-term partners. Canada, provided it stays the course on climate policies, is well-positioned to be a key partner in Europe’s green transition.

    Transatlantic defence co-operation

    Beyond trade and energy, defence co-operation between Canada and the EU is expected to surge. A key priority for the new Liberal government is to finally reach NATO’s benchmark of spending two per cent of gross domestic product on defence, a longstanding commitment that has eluded previous administrations.



    Read more:
    What does Donald Trump’s NATO posturing mean for Canada?

    This signal of rearmament reflects not only alignment with NATO expectations but also a broader understanding that liberal democracies must be prepared to defend themselves. Nowhere is this more pressing than in Ukraine, the epicentre of Europe’s geopolitical storm.

    Canada has been among the most reliable supporters of Ukraine since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion, aligning itself with Europe’s most committed nations — France, Poland, the Baltics and, increasingly, Germany.

    But as threats evolve, the battlefield also extends beyond Ukraine’s frontlines. Hybrid attacks — cyber, disinformation campaigns and foreign interference in democratic processes — now wash up on all shores. Canada’s National Cyber Threat Assessment 2025–26 identifies state-sponsored cyber operations as one of the most serious threats to democratic stability, particularly from Russia and China.



    Read more:
    Foreign interference threats in Canada’s federal election are both old and new

    In strengthening its defence collaboration, Ottawa is hoping to get a seat in the fight against autocracies. The question is no longer whether to engage, but how to lead in this era of layered and compounding threats coming from rivals like Russia and China — and now from the U.S., a historical Canadian ally.

    Under Carney’s leadership, Canada is likely to pursue a pragmatic and globally engaged liberalism definitively aligned with Europe. As Canada and the EU are both looking for reliable allies to weather the storm, this renewed western alliance could solidify around Ottawa and Brussels — anchored in shared democratic values and pragmatic leadership.

    Katerina Sviderska receives funding from Fonds de Recherche du Québec and the Gates Cambridge Foundation.

    Leandre Benoit receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. What Liberal Mark Carney’s Canadian election win means for Europe – https://theconversation.com/what-liberal-mark-carneys-canadian-election-win-means-for-europe-254775

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The game change Canadian election: Mark Carney leads Liberals to their fourth consecutive win

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Fiona MacDonald, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Northern British Columbia

    Canada’s 2025 federal election will be remembered as a game-changer. Liberal Leader Mark Carney pulled off a dramatic reversal of political fortunes after convincing voters he was the best candidate to fight annexation threats from United States President Donald Trump.

    Only four months ago, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had a 25-point lead in public opinion polls and a fairly secure path to victory.

    Yet Poilievre’s lead soon vanished due to shifting voter sentiments defined less by the official campaign period and more by the months that preceded it. Justin Trudeau’s early January resignation announcement and Carney’s confirmation that he was officially in the Liberal leadership race dramatically changed the political landscape.



    Read more:
    After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election

    Within a matter of weeks, Liberal support surged when Carney became party leader and Trump continued to make threats about Canada becoming a 51st American state — and to levy punishing on-again, off-again tariffs against the country.

    The party went from being 20 percentage points behind the Conservatives to overtaking them, putting the party on track to secure its fourth consecutive victory. A shift described by longtime pollster Frank Graves as “unprecedented.”

    Poilievre’s messaging

    The emerging “Canada strong” and “elbows up” narratives, linked to the widespread anti-Trump sentiment, proved a major advantage for the Liberals, who made the most out of this political gift.

    This shift, alongside Carney’s elimination of the carbon tax, left Poilievre on the back foot as his longstanding messaging on Trudeau and his “axe the tax” slogan became largely irrelevant.



    Read more:
    Who really killed Canada’s carbon tax? Friends and foes alike

    The impact of these shifts in electoral fortunes extended beyond the two main parties. As the election became increasingly a two-party race between the Liberals and Conservatives, the smaller parties struggled for relevance.

    Election campaign polling and early results indicated steep losses for the NDP, with Leader Jagmeet Singh’s own seat in Burnaby, B.C., under threat. This could be due to voters on the left responding to calls to vote strategically to prevent Conservative victories in various ridings.

    The Bloc Québecois also lost ground, as did the Green Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). Neither the Greens nor the PPC fielded full slates of candidates or participated in the leaders’ debates and therefore played comparatively limited roles in this election.

    Advance voting in a gendered election

    Another notable feature of this election was the record advance voting turnout, which surged to 7.3 million Canadians, up sharply from 5.8 million in 2021.

    Early voting has now become a central part of party campaign strategy, with campaigns “getting out the vote” at every opportunity, not just on Election Day. This trend raises questions not only about whether overall turnout will rise, but also whether party platforms remain as influential given so many votes were cast before all parties released their platforms.

    While many Canadians take in elections with a focus on party leaders and seat counts, there are other important ways to contemplate election outcomes in terms of inclusion and voice. What does this election tell us about gender and diversity representation in Canada’s Parliament?

    This was a deeply gendered election. The major party leaders are all men, with the exception of Elizabeth May, the Green Party co-leader.

    Preliminary candidate data showed a decrease in the number of women candidates compared to 2021.

    The NDP nominated the highest proportion of women candidates — the majority of its candidates are women — and fielded the most diverse slate of candidates in terms of Indigenous people, Black people, racialized people and LGBTQ+ candidates. But the party’s dramatic losses mean these gains will not translate into more diverse representation in Parliament.

    Furthermore, one of Carney’s first actions as prime minister was to eliminate the sex-balanced cabinet and to reduce the size of the cabinet. He eliminated the Ministry of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) as well as ministerial portfolios focused on youth, official languages, diversity, inclusion, disability and seniors.

    These decisions reverse previous efforts taken to institutionalize gender and diversity leadership in Canada’s Parliament.

    Party platforms also reflected diverging approaches when it came to women. The Conservative platform only mentioned women four times, and three of those mentions were in the context of opposition to transgender rights.



    Read more:
    Pierre Poilievre’s ‘More Boots, Less Suits’ election strategy held little appeal to women

    The role of young working-class men

    Polling also revealed intersections of generation, gender and class are increasingly relevant. Like the last federal election, young working-class men are increasingly drawn to the Conservatives. This trend appears to be driven less by fiscal conservatism and more by concerns about rapid social change, a trend also observed in the 2024 American presidential election.

    Many of these young men are expressing frustrations over housing affordability and job security, and what they view as the Liberal and NDP’s “woke culture,” which they view as eroding traditional values that have traditionally benefited men. In contrast, Canadian women of all ages continue to favour parties they view as more progressive — the Liberals and the NDP.

    Theoretical explanations for this include young men feeling left behind by the Liberals, while the Conservatives have seemingly figured out a way to connect with them.

    This may reflect campaign rhetoric about returning to traditional expectations and values around gender roles and men’s rights to well-paying jobs, an affordable home and taking care of their families.

    Electoral reform needed?

    In the aftermath of Carney’s victory, there are avenues through which current gaps in representation can be addressed. Organizations like the United Nations’ Inter-parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, as well as gender and politics scholarship, propose various reforms to continue to strengthen diversity in Parliament.

    These reforms are understood to be essential for enhancing the legitimacy, responsiveness and effectiveness of Canada’s parliamentary system. Research on gender-and diversity-sensitive parliaments consistently shows that when legislative bodies reflect the diversity of the societies they govern, they are more likely to produce policies that are equitable, inclusive and trusted by the public.

    Overall, this Canadian election was characterized by transformative twists and turns that shed more light on important ongoing questions about representation and the potential need for democratic reform if Canadians want to avoid a two-party system.

    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. The game change Canadian election: Mark Carney leads Liberals to their fourth consecutive win – https://theconversation.com/the-game-change-canadian-election-mark-carney-leads-liberals-to-their-fourth-consecutive-win-253721

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What Canada’s election of Mark Carney’s Liberals means for Europe

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Katerina Sviderska, PhD Candidate in Slavonic Studies, University of Cambridge

    Just months ago, Canada’s Conservatives were leading the polls, surfing the wave of radical right ideas and rhetoric sweeping across the globe. But with the election victory of Mark Carney’s Liberal Party, Canada now stands out as a liberal anchor in a fractured West.

    This election not only shapes Canada’s domestic trajectory, but also carries significant implications for its international partnerships amid rising geopolitical uncertainty.

    As some European countries and the United States head towards isolationism, authoritarianism and turn to the East — even flirting with Russia — Canada’s continued Liberal leadership reinforces its position as a key ally for the European Union. Carney’s centrist and pro-EU attitude provides stability and relief for Europeans.

    From defence to trade and climate, Canada and the EU share deep economic and strategic ties. With a Liberal government, these connections will strengthen, offering both sides what they need the most: a reliable, like-minded partner at a time of transatlantic unpredictability.

    What does Carney’s victory mean specifically for the Canada-EU relationship?

    Trade as a strategic anchor

    Carney’s election offers new momentum for Canada-EU collaboration. His “blue liberalism” brings Canada ideologically closer to Europe’s current leadership — from Emmanuel Macron’s centrist France to the Christian Democratic Union-led coalition in Germany — providing fertile ground for pragmatic co-operation.

    Trade remains the foundation of the Canada-EU relationship, and both sides should aim to build on it. At the heart of this partnership is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which has increased EU-Canada trade by 65 per cent since 2017.

    European Council President António Costa has called the deal a success story providing clear proof “trade agreements are clearly better than trade tariffs.”

    As the U.S. speeds toward toward economic nationalism, CETA has become more than a commercial agreement — it’s a strategic anchor in the global liberal order. One of the Liberal government’s early priorities is likely to consolidate and strengthen CETA. In doing so, Canada can position itself as an ambitious partner, ready to seize new opportunities as European countries seek to reduce their reliance on the American market.

    Climate and energy: A balanced agenda

    Climate and energy, too, offer new opportunities for co-operation. Both Canada and the EU are navigating the tensions between pursuing ambitious decarbonization goals and managing economic and inflationary pressures. After scrapping Canada’s carbon tax on his first day in office, Carney has already hinted at a more pragmatic environmental stance.

    While pledging to maintain key climate policies — including the emissions cap on oil and gas — Carney’s government may recalibrate Canada’s approach to energy. This would mirror shifts among some European allies’ climate policies.

    This evolving transatlantic consensus — less about abandoning climate goals, more about making them economically viable — paves the way for closer co-operation based on a common goal: bolstering economic competitiveness while maintaining environmental credibility.

    Both Carney and the EU view the investment in new technologies as the path forward.

    As Europe accelerates its green agenda and implements new sustainability rules, only countries with strong environmental standards qualify as long-term partners. Canada, provided it stays the course on climate policies, is well-positioned to be a key partner in Europe’s green transition.

    Transatlantic defence co-operation

    Beyond trade and energy, defence co-operation between Canada and the EU is expected to surge. A key priority for the new Liberal government is to finally reach NATO’s benchmark of spending two per cent of gross domestic product on defence, a longstanding commitment that has eluded previous administrations.



    Read more:
    What does Donald Trump’s NATO posturing mean for Canada?

    This signal of rearmament reflects not only alignment with NATO expectations but also a broader understanding that liberal democracies must be prepared to defend themselves. Nowhere is this more pressing than in Ukraine, the epicentre of Europe’s geopolitical storm.

    Canada has been among the most reliable supporters of Ukraine since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion, aligning itself with Europe’s most committed nations — France, Poland, the Baltics and, increasingly, Germany.

    But as threats evolve, the battlefield also extends beyond Ukraine’s frontlines. Hybrid attacks — cyber, disinformation campaigns and foreign interference in democratic processes — now wash up on all shores. Canada’s National Cyber Threat Assessment 2025–26 identifies state-sponsored cyber operations as one of the most serious threats to democratic stability, particularly from Russia and China.



    Read more:
    Foreign interference threats in Canada’s federal election are both old and new

    In strengthening its defence collaboration, Ottawa is hoping to get a seat in the fight against autocracies. The question is no longer whether to engage, but how to lead in this era of layered and compounding threats coming from rivals like Russia and China — and now from the U.S., a historical Canadian ally.

    Under Carney’s leadership, Canada is likely to pursue a pragmatic and globally engaged liberalism definitively aligned with Europe. As Canada and the EU are both looking for reliable allies to weather the storm, this renewed western alliance could solidify around Ottawa and Brussels — anchored in shared democratic values and pragmatic leadership.

    Katerina Sviderska receives funding from Fonds de Recherche du Québec and the Gates Cambridge Foundation.

    Leandre Benoit receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. What Canada’s election of Mark Carney’s Liberals means for Europe – https://theconversation.com/what-canadas-election-of-mark-carneys-liberals-means-for-europe-254775

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The game change Canadian election: Mark Carney’s Liberals win a fourth consecutive election

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Fiona MacDonald, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Northern British Columbia

    Canada’s 2025 federal election will be remembered as a game-changer. Liberal Leader Mark Carney pulled off a dramatic reversal of political fortunes after convincing voters he was the best candidate to fight annexation threats from United States President Donald Trump.

    Only four months ago, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had a 25-point lead in public opinion polls and a fairly secure path to victory.

    Yet Poilievre’s lead soon vanished due to shifting voter sentiments defined less by the official campaign period and more by the months that preceded it. Justin Trudeau’s early January resignation announcement and Carney’s confirmation that he was officially in the Liberal leadership race dramatically changed the political landscape.



    Read more:
    After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election

    Within a matter of weeks, Liberal support surged when Carney became party leader and Trump continued to make threats about Canada becoming a 51st American state — and to levy punishing on-again, off-again tariffs against the country.

    The party went from being 20 percentage points behind the Conservatives to overtaking them, putting the party on track to secure its fourth consecutive victory. A shift described by longtime pollster Frank Graves as “unprecedented.”

    Poilievre’s messaging

    The emerging “Canada strong” and “elbows up” narratives, linked to the widespread anti-Trump sentiment, proved a major advantage for the Liberals, who made the most out of this political gift.

    This shift, alongside Carney’s elimination of the carbon tax, left Poilievre on the back foot as his longstanding messaging on Trudeau and his “axe the tax” slogan became largely irrelevant.



    Read more:
    Who really killed Canada’s carbon tax? Friends and foes alike

    The impact of these shifts in electoral fortunes extended beyond the two main parties. As the election became increasingly a two-party race between the Liberals and Conservatives, the smaller parties struggled for relevance.

    Election campaign polling and early results indicated steep losses for the NDP, with Leader Jagmeet Singh’s own seat in Burnaby, B.C., under threat. This could be due to voters on the left responding to calls to vote strategically to prevent Conservative victories in various ridings.

    The Bloc Québecois also lost ground, as did the Green Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). Neither the Greens nor the PPC fielded full slates of candidates or participated in the leaders’ debates and therefore played comparatively limited roles in this election.

    Advance voting in a gendered election

    Another notable feature of this election was the record advance voting turnout, which surged to 7.3 million Canadians, up sharply from 5.8 million in 2021.

    Early voting has now become a central part of party campaign strategy, with campaigns “getting out the vote” at every opportunity, not just on Election Day. This trend raises questions not only about whether overall turnout will rise, but also whether party platforms remain as influential given so many votes were cast before all parties released their platforms.

    While many Canadians take in elections with a focus on party leaders and seat counts, there are other important ways to contemplate election outcomes in terms of inclusion and voice. What does this election tell us about gender and diversity representation in Canada’s Parliament?

    This was a deeply gendered election. The major party leaders are all men, with the exception of Elizabeth May, the Green Party co-leader.

    Preliminary candidate data showed a decrease in the number of women candidates compared to 2021.

    The NDP nominated the highest proportion of women candidates — the majority of its candidates are women — and fielded the most diverse slate of candidates in terms of Indigenous people, Black people, racialized people and LGBTQ+ candidates. But the party’s dramatic losses mean these gains will not translate into more diverse representation in Parliament.

    Furthermore, one of Carney’s first actions as prime minister was to eliminate the sex-balanced cabinet and to reduce the size of the cabinet. He eliminated the Ministry of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) as well as ministerial portfolios focused on youth, official languages, diversity, inclusion, disability and seniors.

    These decisions reverse previous efforts taken to institutionalize gender and diversity leadership in Canada’s Parliament.

    Party platforms also reflected diverging approaches when it came to women. The Conservative platform only mentioned women four times, and three of those mentions were in the context of opposition to transgender rights.



    Read more:
    Pierre Poilievre’s ‘More Boots, Less Suits’ election strategy held little appeal to women

    The role of young working-class men

    Polling also revealed intersections of generation, gender and class are increasingly relevant. Like the last federal election, young working-class men are increasingly drawn to the Conservatives. This trend appears to be driven less by fiscal conservatism and more by concerns about rapid social change, a trend also observed in the 2024 American presidential election.

    Many of these young men are expressing frustrations over housing affordability and job security, and what they view as the Liberal and NDP’s “woke culture,” which they view as eroding traditional values that have traditionally benefited men. In contrast, Canadian women of all ages continue to favour parties they view as more progressive — the Liberals and the NDP.

    Theoretical explanations for this include young men feeling left behind by the Liberals, while the Conservatives have seemingly figured out a way to connect with them.

    This may reflect campaign rhetoric about returning to traditional expectations and values around gender roles and men’s rights to well-paying jobs, an affordable home and taking care of their families.

    Electoral reform needed?

    In the aftermath of Carney’s victory, there are avenues through which current gaps in representation can be addressed. Organizations like the United Nations’ Inter-parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, as well as gender and politics scholarship, propose various reforms to continue to strengthen diversity in Parliament.

    These reforms are understood to be essential for enhancing the legitimacy, responsiveness and effectiveness of Canada’s parliamentary system. Research on gender-and diversity-sensitive parliaments consistently shows that when legislative bodies reflect the diversity of the societies they govern, they are more likely to produce policies that are equitable, inclusive and trusted by the public.

    Overall, this Canadian election was characterized by transformative twists and turns that shed more light on important ongoing questions about representation and the potential need for democratic reform if Canadians want to avoid a two-party system.

    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. The game change Canadian election: Mark Carney’s Liberals win a fourth consecutive election – https://theconversation.com/the-game-change-canadian-election-mark-carneys-liberals-win-a-fourth-consecutive-election-253721

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why are political parties allowed to send spam texts? And how can we make them stop?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tegan Cohen, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology

    Ti Wi / Unsplash

    Another election, another wave of unsolicited political texts. Over this campaign, our digital mailboxes have been stuffed with a slew of political appeals and promises, many from the new party Trumpet of Patriots (backed by Clive Palmer, a veteran of the mass text campaign).

    The practice isn’t new, and it’s totally legal under current laws. It’s also non-partisan. Campaigns of all stripes have partaken. Behold, the Liberal Party’s last-minute SMS to voters about asylum seekers before the 2022 federal election, or Labor’s controversial “Mediscare” text before the 2016 poll. Despite multiple cycles of criticism, these tactics remain a persistent feature of Australian election campaigns.

    A recent proposal to update decades-old rules could help change things – if a government would put it into practice.

    What does the law say about political spam?

    Several laws regulate spam and data collection in Australia.

    First, there is the Spam Act. This legislation requires that organisations obtain our consent before sending us marketing emails, SMSs and instant messages. The unsubscribe links you see at the bottom of spam emails? Those are mandated by the Spam Act.

    Second, the Do Not Call Register (DNCR) Act. This Act establishes a “do not call” register, managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which individuals can join to opt out of telemarketing calls.

    Finally, there is the Privacy Act, which governs how organisations collect, use and disclose our personal information. Among other things, the Privacy Act requires that organisations tell us when and why they are collecting our personal information, and the purposes for which they intend to use it. It restricts organisations from re-purposing personal information collected for a particular purpose, unless an exception applies.

    This trio of laws was designed to offer relief from unsolicited, unwanted direct marketing. It does not, however, stop the deluge of political spam at election time due to broad political exemptions sewn into the legislation decades ago.

    The Spam Act and DNCR Act apply to marketing for goods and services but not election policies and promises, while the Privacy Act contains a carve-out for political parties, representatives and their contractors.

    The upshot is that their campaigns are free to spam and target voters at will. Their only obligation is to disclose who authorised the message.

    How do political campaigns get our information?

    Secrecy about the nature and extent of campaign data operations, enabled by the exemptions, makes it difficult to pinpoint precisely where a campaign might have obtained your data from.

    There are, however, a number of ways political campaigns can acquire our information.

    One source is the electoral roll (though not for phone numbers, as the Australian Electoral Commission often points out). Incumbent candidates might build on this with information they obtain through contact with constituents which, thanks to the exemptions, they’re allowed to re-purpose for campaigning at election time.

    Another source is data brokers – firms which harvest, analyse and sell large quantities of data and profiles.

    We know the major parties have long maintained voter databases to support their targeting efforts, which have become increasingly sophisticated over the years.

    Other outfits might take more haphazard approaches – former MP Craig Kelly, for example, claimed to use software to randomly generate numbers for his texting campaign in 2021.

    What can be done?

    Unwanted campaign texts are not only irritating to some. They can be misleading.

    This year, there have been reports of “push polling” texts (pseudo surveys meant to persuade rather than gauge voter options) in the marginal seat of Kooyong. The AEC has warned about misleading postal vote applications being issued by parties via SMS.

    This election campaign has seen a flood of texts from Trumpet of Patriots among others.
    The Conversation, CC BY-SA

    Generative AI is hastening the ability to produce misleading content, cheaply and at scale, which can be quickly pushed out across an array of online social and instant messaging services.

    In short, annoying texts are just one visible symptom of a wider vulnerability created by the political exemptions.

    The basic argument for the political exemptions is to facilitate freedom of political communication, which is protected by the Constitution. As the High Court has said, that freedom is necessary to support informed electoral choice. It does not, however, guarantee speakers a captive audience.

    In 2022, the Attorney-General’s Department proposed narrowing the political exemptions, as part of a suite of updates to the Privacy Act. Per the proposal, parties and representatives would need to be more transparent about their data operations, provide voters with an option to unsubscribe from targeted ads, refrain from targeting voters based on “sensitive information”, and handle data in a “fair and reasonable” manner.

    The changes would be an overdue but welcome step, recognising the essential role of voter privacy in a functioning democratic system.

    Unfortunately, the government has not committed to taking up the proposal.

    A bipartisan lack of support is likely the biggest obstacle, even as the gap created by the political exemptions widens, and its rationale becomes flimsier, with each election cycle.

    Tegan Cohen has received funding from the Australian Research Council (FT210100263). She has volunteered for not-for-profit groups and parties, including the Wilderness Society and the Australian Greens.

    – ref. Why are political parties allowed to send spam texts? And how can we make them stop? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-political-parties-allowed-to-send-spam-texts-and-how-can-we-make-them-stop-255413

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The Oscars have rolled out the red carpet for generative AI. And surprisingly, viewers don’t seem to mind

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Crosby, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, Macquarie University

    The Oscars have entered the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Last week the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences explicitly said, for the first time, films using generative AI tools will not be disqualified from the awards.

    It’s a timely decision. As generative AI becomes more integrated into filmmaking, debates over creativity and authorship are intensifying. Writers’ strikes and fears of artistic displacement have dominated recent industry discussions.

    But how do audiences feel about the use of AI in films? Our research suggests they may be more open to it than the industry might expect.

    What the new rules say

    The updated Oscars guidelines make it clear the use of generative AI will neither help, nor hinder, a film’s chances of nomination.

    What matters is the degree to which people remain at the centre of the creative process. While AI tools can be part of the workflow, the judges will scrutinise the standard of human creative authorship in a given work.

    This reflects broader shifts taking place in the film industry. AI tools are now embedded in many stages of production, including for high-profile and award-nominated films.

    At this year’s Oscars, Adrien Brody won best actor for his performance in The Brutalist, which used generative AI to enhance the actor’s Hungarian dialogue. Emilia Pérez – the most nominated film, with 13 nods – also used AI-powered voice cloning in post-production.

    The Oscars update isn’t introducing AI to Hollywood. It’s simply acknowledging the extent to which it is already in use.

    Do audiences mind?

    To understand how audiences respond to AI’s creative role in film, we conducted an experiment testing people’s reactions to AI-generated film ideas.

    For our study, published in the Journal of Cultural Economics, we asked 500 US-based participants to rate AI-generated film “pitches” in terms of their anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the film across different formats (such as cinema, online rental, or streaming).

    Half of the participants were explicitly told the ideas were generated by AI, while the other half were not. Each AI-generated pitch included a synopsis, director, top-billed cast, genre, rating and runtime.

    The results were clear. There was no systematic bias against AI-generated pitches. Ratings of anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the films were broadly similar, regardless of whether the participants knew AI was involved.

    AI-assisted versus AI-produced

    It’s important to note our research focused on audience reactions to ideas – the initial pitch for a film – and not the final product. This distinction matters.

    AI’s role was limited in our experiment. Human directors and cast members were implicitly part of each pitch, and there was no suggestion AI had written the full screenplay or contributed in other ways to the production of the final film.

    As we note in our paper, AI’s limited involvement likely shaped participants’ responses. There was an implicit understanding that human creativity would remain central to the final product.

    This aligns with broader evidence from other creative sectors. In the case of music and visual art, audiences tend to respond less favourably when they believe a work has been fully AI-generated.

    Together, these findings suggest the middle ground may be the best approach. While audiences may be accepting of AI’s contribution to creative tasks such as idea generation, editing, and visual and audio effects, they still value human authorship and authenticity in the final product.

    That is also the balance the Academy Awards seems to be aiming for. The new rules do not disqualify films for using AI. However, they emphasise that awards will go to works where humans remain at the heart of the creative process. For now, audiences appear to be comfortable with that approach, too.

    What it means for the industry

    Generative tools are becoming part of the mainstream production toolkit. And this raises important questions about creative labour, credit and compensation.

    While our research suggests audiences may be open to AI-generated content, this doesn’t mean the industry can move forward without careful deliberation. The question is no longer whether AI will shape the future of film, but how – and who gets to decide the terms.

    If AI is to complement, rather than diminish, the filmmaking process, it will be important to maintain clear standards and ethical guidelines around AI use, as well as a clear role for human authorship.

    This includes transparency around how AI tools are used, and appropriate recognition for creative contributions – including for those whose work has been used to train generative AI systems.

    The real test will be whether the industry can embrace AI without losing sight of the creative values that define it.

    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. The Oscars have rolled out the red carpet for generative AI. And surprisingly, viewers don’t seem to mind – https://theconversation.com/the-oscars-have-rolled-out-the-red-carpet-for-generative-ai-and-surprisingly-viewers-dont-seem-to-mind-255120

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘I’m always afraid for the future of my family’: why it’s too hard for some refugees to reunite with loved ones

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University

    When refugees flee their home country due to war, violence, conflict or persecution, they are often forced to leave behind their families.

    For more than 30,000 people who have sought asylum in Australia since arriving more than a decade ago, that separation has stretched into more than a decade. This group of people – known in policy circles as “the legacy caseload” – need a clear pathway to reunite with family members.

    Refugees separated from family are plagued by guilt and worry for their family members’ safety. This makes it extremely difficult to focus on education, work or getting settled.

    The right to family unity is a basic human right and vital to any humane refugee policy.

    However, tensions arise between refugees’ conceptions of family and the restrictive definitions embedded in Australian law.

    High costs, complex administrative requirements, and lengthy processing times often delay or prevent families from reuniting.

    The legacy caseload: more than a decade in limbo

    The so-called “legacy caseload” refers to approximately 30,000 people who arrived by boat between 2012 and 2014, and who were placed on Temporary Protection Visas.

    For more than a decade, they were denied a pathway to permanency and barred from sponsoring family members to join them in Australia.

    That policy made life so unbearable, more than 6,500 people from this group “chose” to return home despite the risks they face. This raises serious concerns about whether they were genuinely able to make a free choice, or were pushed into returning to danger.

    Since the Albanese government’s 2022 commitment to end temporary protection, almost 20,000 people have been eligible to transition to permanent visas through the Resolution of Status process.

    This is a crucial step. Without a permanent visa, they could not sponsor family members.

    Even with permanency, however, family reunion remains out of reach for many “legacy caseload” refugees. This is due to outdated laws, harsh policies and bureaucratic delays.

    Many of these refugees have not seen their spouses or children since before their arrival. Because they arrived by boat, they are barred from proposing family members through the humanitarian visa program and must use the family migration program.

    That’s significant because the humanitarian program has a much broader definition of “family”, and grants people access to settlement services after they arrive.

    Still unresolved is the fate of some 7,000 people who were refused protection under the flawed fast track system (a now abandoned policy that was supposed to speed up processing but actually introduced delays and unfairness).

    These people urgently need a pathway to permanency.

    Why family reunion remains so difficult

    The main barriers to family reunification for refugees include:

    • high visa fees (partner visa application charges, when they include children, can cost more than A$20,000)
    • strict legal definitions (children over 23 are not classified as “dependents”; a child who was 12 when their parent fled may now be 24 — legally an adult, but still dependent and at risk)
    • barriers to documentation (war and instability can make it difficult or dangerous to obtain documents, such as passports or identity papers)
    • limited access to embassies
    • technical issues with online applications
    • repeated health checks (there is a visa requirement health checks but they are only valid for 12 months, so may need to be repeated if visa processing is delayed)
    • unclear rules around exemptions.

    These uncertainties further delay the process and add emotional and financial strain.

    Calls for reform

    Several organisations, including the Refugee Council of Australia, have called for clear, achievable reforms. These include:

    • introducing visa application charge concessions for refugees
    • allowing people to pay fees in instalments
    • adapting visa processing to reflect realities faced by refugee and humanitarian visa applicants, such as challenges obtaining identity documents
    • establishing a dedicated unit in the Department of Home Affairs for processing visas from refugee families
    • prioritising families where children may “age out”.

    They have also called for changes to the legal definitions of “dependent” and “member of the family unit”. This is to reflect the diverse familial structures in many refugee communities.

    For many refugees, family extends beyond the Western concept of the nuclear family. It may also encompass, for instance, adult daughters and parents (who often play pivotal care-giving roles).

    Another big issue for many refugee families is single young women in Afghanistan being left behind because they have aged out.

    Reuniting families

    Australia can learn from other countries.

    Canada’s refugee sponsorship program actively supports family reunification.

    New Zealand offers a more affordable and flexible system. Their definitions of family are broader and visa fees are lower.

    Without family reunion, a refugee’s safety remains incomplete.

    As one refugee told researchers:

    I’m partly safer [in Australia], but inside I’m not safe […] I’m always afraid for the future of my family.

    Thousands of refugees in Australia are still waiting. Their families remain in danger. The legal and policy tools to fix this already exist. What’s missing, for now, is the political will.

    Reforming Australia’s family reunion system would mean more efficient refugee resettlement and integration, ultimately benefiting broader Australian society.

    Mary Anne Kenny is a member of the Migration Institute of Australia and the Law Council of Australia and an affiliate of the UNSW Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. She was on the Ministerial Council on Asylum Seekers and Detention (an independent advisory body) between 2012 and 2018.

    – ref. ‘I’m always afraid for the future of my family’: why it’s too hard for some refugees to reunite with loved ones – https://theconversation.com/im-always-afraid-for-the-future-of-my-family-why-its-too-hard-for-some-refugees-to-reunite-with-loved-ones-254710

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Do something about it before it gets worse’: young people want government action on gambling reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Pitt, Senior Research Fellow – Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University

    David P. Smith/Shutterstock

    Do something about it before it gets worse.

    This was a response from a 16-year-old boy in one of our recent studies when asked what he would say to the prime minister about gambling in Australia.

    This response is not uncommon.



    Read more:
    Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading?

    Calls for action

    Even before they can legally gamble at the age of 18, young people recognise the harms that the gambling industry (and those who profit from gambling, such as sporting codes) can cause to Australians.

    And they are frustrated by a lack of government action to protect them from these harms.

    They tell us that rather than prioritising the wellbeing of the community, the government is prioritising the profits of a harmful business.

    Politicians are also hearing concerns about gambling from the young people they represent in their communities.

    Urging parliamentary action on gambling advertising, former Australian rugby captain and Independent ACT Senator David Pocock told parliament:

    Talk to parents and young people. They’ll name all the gambling companies. They’ll be able to recite odds. They’ll talk about the odds for the upcoming games of their favourite teams. What I’m hearing from people here in the ACT that I represent is that this is not the direction they want to go in.

    Gambling has become a costly pastime for many young Australians.

    Starting young

    For more than a decade, our team has been talking to young people and their parents about the normalisation of gambling in Australia. We have carried out multiple studies that show how pervasive marketing tactics are normalising gambling for young Australians.

    Young people tell us they see innovative marketing strategies for different gambling products (including betting, lotteries and casinos) everywhere, including during family-friendly television shows, through watching and attending sport and even while walking down the street.

    They increasingly see promotions on social media sites such as TikTok and Snapchat.

    They can name multiple gambling brands from a young age, and think gambling gives you a reason to watch sport.

    When asked why, they say gambling adds to the fun and excitement of the game. Some tell us they would be convinced to gamble if they got a good “deal” from a company.

    Newer forms of app-based gambling also make it is easier for young people to gamble anywhere, anytime when they turn 18.

    As an example, a young person couldn’t sit in a classroom and drink alcohol when they reach the legal age, but it is not unusual for young people to tell us that classmates use apps to bet on major events while at school.

    Some researchers have also documented the extent to which young people gamble before the age of 18.

    One study found 31% of 12- to 17-year-olds had ever gambled and 6% had gambled in the past month. They found 8% were at some level of risk of gambling harm.

    It’s no wonder parents are worried.

    Their concern about the risks of gambling are similar to their concerns about alcohol: 70% are at least somewhat concerned about the risks associated with gambling for their children, and 27.7% are extremely concerned.

    They comment that gambling products are “highly accessible”, “attractive” and “in your face”.

    When parents try to talk to their children about gambling, they say it is almost impossible to “get the message across” given the constant exposure to ads that their children see in their everyday lives. As one father told us:

    It’s advertised to children every day of the week when they watch their favourite sport stars, so they think it’s normal.

    It’s time to act

    Government decisions about how to respond to the gambling industry will have a major impact on young people’s futures. But young people have rarely (if ever) been given an opportunity by the government to put forward their views.

    Research shows when they are given the opportunity to comment on gambling policy (and gambling industry tactics), they carefully consider the issues. They are also able to use their own experiences to suggest strategies that would help protect them and other young people from gambling industry harm.

    The United Nations states children have the right to be consulted about issues that matter to them and impact their futures. This includes strengthening engagement with children and young people, recognising their “agency, resilience and their positive contributions as agents of change”.

    Young people have been central actors in the climate justice movement, and have been key stakeholders in initiatives to respond to the tactics of the junk food and tobacco industries.

    While we talk a lot about the impact of the gambling industry on young people, governments rarely consult them about the policies that are needed to protect them from harm.

    Yet their message to the government in our research is clear. They:

    • are concerned about the influence of gambling marketing on the normalisation of gambling for young people, and its short and long-term impacts

    • believe current restrictions aimed at protecting young people are ineffective

    • are critical of the overwhelmingly positive messages about gambling they are exposed to, with very limited information about the risks and harms associated with the industry and its products.

    The following comment from a 15-year-old sums it up best:

    The wellbeing of the population is more important than the revenue that comes in from these sorts of businesses.

    Dr Hannah Pitt has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, VicHealth, NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, Department of Social Services, ACT Office of Gambling and Racing Commission, and Deakin University. She is currently a member of the Editorial Board of Health Promotion International.

    Grace Arnot has received funding for gambling related research from the ACT Office of Gambling and Racing Commission, VicHealth, and Deakin University. Grace is currently a member of the Editorial Board of the journal Health Promotion International.

    Professor Samantha Thomas has received funding for gambling and related research from the Australian Research Council, ACT Office of Gaming and Racing, Department of Social Services, VicHealth, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Healthway, NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, Deakin University. She is currently Editor in Chief for Health Promotion International, an Oxford University Press journal. She receives an honorarium for this role.

    Dr Simone McCarthy has received funding for gambling and related research from ACT Office of Gaming and Racing Commision, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, VicHealth, Department of Social Services, and Deakin University. She is currently a member of the Editorial Board of Health Promotion International.

    – ref. ‘Do something about it before it gets worse’: young people want government action on gambling reform – https://theconversation.com/do-something-about-it-before-it-gets-worse-young-people-want-government-action-on-gambling-reform-251614

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Echidna ancestors lived watery lifestyles like platypuses 100 million years ago – new study

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sue Hand, Professor Emeritus, Palaeontology, UNSW Sydney

    Mary_May/Shutterstock

    As the world’s only surviving egg-laying mammals, Australasia’s platypus and four echidna species are among the most extraordinary animals on Earth.

    They are also very different from each other.

    The platypus is well adapted for a semi-aquatic lifestyle, spending up to 20 hours a day swimming in Australian waterways to forage for freshwater invertebrates. Echidnas, on the other hand, live entirely on land. They are widely distributed across Australia and New Guinea, and adapted for feeding on termites, ants and earthworms.

    How did these differences emerge? Some researchers think echidnas evolved from a swimming, platypus-like ancestor. This hypothesis is based on evidence from aspects of their genes and anatomy, and from hypotheses about their evolutionary history.

    However, this idea is controversial because fossil evidence for such a profound evolutionary transformation has been lacking – until now.

    Did the ancestors of echidnas spend time in the water? It’s a controversial idea.
    Natalia Golovina/Shutterstock

    A bone from 108 million years ago

    In our study published today in PNAS, we gleaned new data from a 108-million-year-old mammal humerus (arm bone), found 30 years ago at Dinosaur Cove, Victoria, by a team from Museums Victoria.

    This arm bone, from a species called Kryoryctes cadburyi, belongs to an ancestral monotreme – a semi-aquatic burrower like the platypus. Our findings support the hypothesis that land-living echidnas evolved from a swimming ancestor.

    Kryoryctes lived during the Age of Dinosaurs (the Mesozoic), when monotremes and monotreme relatives were more common than they are today. Glimpses of this past diversity are found in the fossil record in southern Victoria and Lightning Ridge, New South Wales.

    Nevertheless, Australian Mesozoic mammal fossils are exceedingly rare, and mostly consist of teeth and jaws. Kryoryctes is the only one known from a limb bone, which provides significant information about its identity, relationships and lifestyle.

    Reconstruction of Kryoryctes cadburyi and a small dinosaur (above) at Dinosaur Cove, Victoria, Australia ~108 million years ago.
    Peter Schouten

    Tiny clues inside bones

    In order to test the evolutionary relationships of Kryoryctes, we added it to a broader data set of 70 fossil and modern mammals. From there, we calculated an evolutionary tree. This showed Kryoryctes is an ancestral monotreme.

    We also compared the external shape of the Kryroryctes humerus bone to living monotremes. These analyses indicated the bone is more like those of echidnas, rather than platypuses.

    But it was a different story on the inside. When we looked at the internal structure of the Kryoryctes humerus with several 3D scanning techniques, we uncovered microscopic features of this arm bone that were actually more like those of the platypus.

    Such tiny features inside bones yield crucial clues about the lifestyle of an animal. Numerous previous studies link bone microstructure in mammals and other tetrapods (four-limbed animals) with their ecology.

    Using the wealth of data available for living mammals, we compared characteristics of the Kryoryctes humerus microstructure to those in platypuses, echidnas and 74 other mammal species.

    These analyses confirmed that the Kryoryctes humerus has internal bone features found in semi-aquatic burrowing mammals (such as the platypus, muskrat and Eurasian otter), rather than land-living burrowing mammals such as the echidna.

    The Kryoryctes humerus we studied.
    Museums Victoria

    From water to land

    This discovery suggests that a semi-aquatic lifestyle is ancestral for all living monotremes. It also suggests the amphibious lifestyle of the modern platypus had its origins at least 100 million years ago, during the Age of Dinosaurs.

    In this scenario, the modern platypus lineage has retained the ancestral semi-aquatic burrowing lifestyle for more than 100 million years. Echidnas would have reverted to a land-based way of life more recently.

    For echidnas, a return to land appears to have resulted in adaptations such as their long bones becoming lighter, as shown in our study.

    They possibly also lost several other features more useful for spending time in the water rather than on land, including the loss of a long tail, reduction of webbing between fingers and toes, reduction of the duck-like bill to a narrow beak, and a reduced number of electroreceptors on that beak.

    However, precisely when this evolutionary transformation occurred is not yet known. The answer must wait until early echidna fossils are found – so far, nothing definitive has turned up anywhere.

    The modern habitats of monotremes are increasingly under threat from environmental degradation, interactions with humans and feral predators, and climate change. This is especially true for platypuses. To ensure the survival of this ancient lineage, we need to better understand how their unique features evolved and adapted.

    Sue Hand receives funding from the Australian Research Council

    Laura A. B. Wilson receives funding from the Australian Research Council

    Robin Beck receives funding from the UK’s National Environmental Research Council, and the Australian Research Council.

    Camilo López-Aguirre 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. Echidna ancestors lived watery lifestyles like platypuses 100 million years ago – new study – https://theconversation.com/echidna-ancestors-lived-watery-lifestyles-like-platypuses-100-million-years-ago-new-study-254484

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: 1 billion years ago, a meteorite struck Scotland and influenced life on Earth

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Kirkland, Professor of Geochronology, Curtin University

    Stoer Head lighthouse, Scotland. William Gale/Shutterstock

    We’ve discovered that a meteorite struck northwest Scotland 1 billion years ago, 200 million years later than previously thought. Our results are published today in the journal Geology.

    This impact now aligns with some of Earth’s earliest known, land based, non-marine microbial fossils, and offers new insights into how meteorite strikes may have shaped our planet’s environment and life.

    A rocky treasure trove

    The Torridonian rocks of northwest Scotland are treasured by geologists as some of the finest archives of the ancient lakes and river systems that existed a billion years ago.

    Those water bodies were home to microbial ecosystems consisting of eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are single-celled organisms with complex internal structures that are the ancestors of all plants and animals.

    But the Torridonian environments and their associated microbial communities were dramatically disrupted when a meteor slammed into the planet.

    A drone’s-eye view of the Stac Fada Member reveals towering blocks of sandstone preserving a meteorite impact frozen in time. Look closely and you’ll spot figures for scale, dwarfed by the chaotic jumble of rock fragments encased in impact-smashed debris.
    Tony Prave

    The record of this event is preserved in a geological unit known as the Stac Fada Member. It is comprised of unusual layers of rock fragments broken and melted by the impact.

    Also, crucially, there are shock-altered minerals that closely resemble those found in famous impact sites such as Chicxulub (Mexico) and Sudbury (Canada).

    In the case of the Stac Fada, these minerals were engulfed in high-energy, ground-hugging flows of smashed rock triggered by the impact that spread across the ancient landscape.

    What is exciting about our new date for the Stac Fada impact is that it now overlaps in age with microfossils preserved elsewhere in the Torridonian rocks.

    This raises some interesting questions. For example, how did the meteorite strike influence the environmental conditions those early non-marine microbial ecosystems relied on?

    Finding out the date

    Determining when a meteorite struck is no easy task.

    We can use minerals to constrain the age, but they have to be the right kind. In this case it means something that wasn’t overly altered by the intense heat, pressure and fluids generated by the impact, yet robust enough to survive the ravages of deep geological time.

    Suitable minerals are extremely rare, but we found a few in the Stac Fada rocks. One was reidite, a mineral that only forms under extreme pressure. The other was granular zircon, a uranium-bearing mineral formed by immense impact temperatures.

    Electron microscope image of a shocked zircon: blue is granular zircon, red is reidite formed under extreme pressure from a meteorite impact.
    Timmons Erickson

    These minerals are, in effect, tiny stopwatches whose clocks start “ticking” at the time they form. Although these clocks are often damaged during the impact and the ensuing pulse of heat, we used mathematical modelling to determine the most probable time of impact.

    Together, these techniques consistently pointed to an event 1 billion years old, not 1.2 billion years old as previously suggested. Given such vast spans of time, a 20% change in age might not seem dramatic.

    However, the new age shows the timing of the impact coincides with early non-marine eukaryotic fossils. It also lines up with a major mountain-building event. This means the Torridonian lifeforms had to cope with significant, environment-altering phenomena.

    Why this is important for you, me, and life in general

    The origin of life is a deeply complex process that likely began with a series of pre-biotic chemical reactions.

    While much remains unknown, it is intriguing that two ancient meteorite impacts, the 3.5-billion-year-old North Pole impact in Western Australia and now the 1-billion-year-old Stac Fada deposit in northwest Scotland, occur close in time to major milestones in the fossil record.

    The North Pole impact occurs in a sequence of rocks containing stromatolites, some of the oldest-known fossils considered to be indicative of microbial life.

    These rippled layers in the Torridon rocks were built by ancient microbial communities, evidence of some of the earliest life on land.
    Tony Prave

    All life requires energy. The earliest forms of life are thought to be associated with volcanic hydrothermal springs. Impacts offer a plausible alternative. The immediate aftermath of a meteorite strike is extreme and hostile, and would ruin your day. But the long-term effects could support key biological processes.

    Meteorite strikes fracture rocks, generate long-lived hydrothermal systems and form crater lakes that enable the concentration of important ingredients for life, such as clays, organic molecules and phosphorus. The latter is a key element for all forms of life.

    In Scotland, the Stac Fada impact lies within an ancient river and lake environment that housed microbial ecosystems colonising the land. What makes the Stac Fada impact deposits fascinating is that, unlike most other impacts on Earth, they preserve the environments in which those pioneering organisms lived immediately prior to the impact.

    Further, the impact deposits were subsequently buried as non-marine microbial habitats became reestablished. So, the Stac Fada rocks provide an opportunity to see how microbial life recovered from impact.

    Extraterrestrial visitors in the form of meteorite collisions may not just have scarred Earth’s surface, but shaped its future, turning catastrophic events into natural crater-cradles of life.

    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. 1 billion years ago, a meteorite struck Scotland and influenced life on Earth – https://theconversation.com/1-billion-years-ago-a-meteorite-struck-scotland-and-influenced-life-on-earth-254285

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Major survey finds most people use AI regularly at work – but almost half admit to doing so inappropriately

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Gillespie, Professor of Management; Chair in Trust, Melbourne Business School

    Matheus Bertelli/Pexels

    Have you ever used ChatGPT to draft a work email? Perhaps to summarise a report, research a topic or analyse data in a spreadsheet? If so, you certainly aren’t alone.

    Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly transforming the world of work. Released today, our global study of more than 32,000 workers from 47 countries shows that 58% of employees intentionally use AI at work – with a third using it weekly or daily.

    Most employees who use it say they’ve gained some real productivity and performance benefits from adopting AI tools.

    However, a concerning number are using AI in highly risky ways – such as uploading sensitive information into public tools, relying on AI answers without checking them, and hiding their use of it.

    There’s an urgent need for policies, training and governance on responsible use of AI, to ensure it enhances – not undermines – how work is done.

    Our research

    We surveyed 32,352 employees in 47 countries, covering all global geographical regions and occupational groups.

    Most employees report performance benefits from AI adoption at work. These include improvements in:

    • efficiency (67%)
    • information access (61%)
    • innovation (59%)
    • work quality (58%).

    These findings echo prior research demonstrating AI can drive productivity gains for employees and organisations.

    We found general-purpose generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, are by far the most widely used. About 70% of employees rely on free, public tools, rather than AI solutions provided by their employer (42%).

    However, almost half the employees we surveyed who use AI say they have done so in ways that could be considered inappropriate (47%) and even more (63%) have seen other employees using AI inappropriately.

    Most survey respondents use free, public AI tools, such as ChatGPT.
    Tada Images/Shutterstock

    Sensitive information

    One key concern surrounding AI tools in the workplace is the handling of sensitive company information – such as financial, sales or customer information.

    Nearly half (48%) of employees have uploaded sensitive company or customer information into public generative AI tools, and 44% admit to having used AI at work in ways that go against organisational policies.

    This aligns with other research showing 27% of content put into AI tools by employees is sensitive.

    Check your answer

    We found complacent use of AI is also widespread, with 66% of respondents saying they have relied on AI output without evaluating it. It is unsurprising then that a majority (56%) have made mistakes in their work due to AI.

    Younger employees (aged 18-34 years) are more likely to engage in inappropriate and complacent use than older employees (aged 35 or older).

    This carries serious risks for organisations and employees. Such mistakes have already led to well-documented cases of financial loss, reputational damage and privacy breaches.

    About a third (35%) of employees say the use of AI tools in their workplace has increased privacy and compliance risks.

    ‘Shadow’ AI use

    When employees aren’t transparent about how they use AI, the risks become even more challenging to manage.

    We found most employees have avoided revealing when they use AI (61%), presented AI-generated content as their own (55%), and used AI tools without knowing if it is allowed (66%).

    This invisible or “shadow AI” use doesn’t just exacerbate risks – it also severely hampers an organisation’s ability to detect, manage and mitigate risks.

    A lack of training, guidance and governance appears to be fuelling this complacent use. Despite their prevalence, only a third of employees (34%) say their organisation has a policy guiding the use of generative AI tools, with 6% saying their organisation bans it.

    Pressure to adopt AI may also fuel complacent use, with half of employees fearing they will be left behind if they do not.

    Almost half of respondents said they had uploaded company financial, sales or customer information into public AI tools.
    Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

    Better literacy and oversight

    Collectively, our findings reveal a significant gap in the governance of AI tools and an urgent need for organisations to guide and manage how employees use them in their everyday work. Addressing this will require a proactive and deliberate approach.

    Investing in responsible AI training and developing employees’ AI literacy is key. Our modelling shows self-reported AI literacy – including training, knowledge, and efficacy – predicts not only whether employees adopt AI tools but also whether they critically engage with them.

    This includes how well they verify the tools’ output, and consider their limitations before making decisions.

    Training can improve how people engage with AI tools and critically evaluate their output.
    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    We found AI literacy is also associated with greater trust in AI use at work and more performance benefits from its use.

    Despite this, less than half of employees (47%) report having received AI training or related education.

    Organisations also need to put in place clear policies, guidelines and guardrails, systems of accountability and oversight, and data privacy and security measures.

    There are many resources to help organisations develop robust AI governance systems and support responsible AI use.

    The right culture

    On top of this, it’s crucial to create a psychologically safe work environment, where employees feel comfortable to share how and when they are using AI tools.

    The benefits of such a culture go beyond better oversight and risk management. It is also central to developing a culture of shared learning and experimentation that supports responsible diffusion of AI use and innovation.

    AI has the potential to improve the way we work. But it takes an AI-literate workforce, robust governance and clear guidance, and a culture that supports safe, transparent and accountable use. Without these elements, AI becomes just another unmanaged liability.

    This research was supported by the Chair in Trust research partnership between the University of Melbourne and KPMG Australia and funding from KPMG International. The research was conducted independently by Professor Nicole Gillespie and Dr Steve Lockey and their research team at Melbourne Business School, The University of Melbourne, and published in collaboration with KPMG.

    – ref. Major survey finds most people use AI regularly at work – but almost half admit to doing so inappropriately – https://theconversation.com/major-survey-finds-most-people-use-ai-regularly-at-work-but-almost-half-admit-to-doing-so-inappropriately-255405

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What Canada can learn from China on effectively engaging with Africa

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Isaac Odoom, Assistant Professor, Political Science, Carleton University

    Canada’s recent launch of a new Africa Strategy comes at a moment of profound geopolitical change and growing shifts in global development co-operation.

    As the western-led order and development model faces increasing scrutiny, countries like China are expanding their reach in Africa by linking development co-operation with commercial and strategic interests.

    These approaches resonate with many African governments, while others raise concerns, prompting an important question: How well does Canada’s new strategy respond to these concerns?



    Read more:
    Canada’s Africa strategy is a landmark moment for Canada-Africa relations, but still needs work

    Urgent need to diversify

    Canada’s pivot toward deeper engagement with Africa is timely. With ongoing tariff threats from the United States and a tense relationship with China, the need to diversify economic partnerships has become urgent.

    Africa’s fast-growing population, expanding middle class and continent-wide integration through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offer real opportunities for commercial engagement.

    While historic, Canada’s new Africa Strategy would benefit from a clearer alignment between Africa’s economic prospects and Canada’s domestic economic challenges, such as labour shortages and trade diversification. Without a stronger economic dimension, Canada risks being perceived as all talk and little commitment.

    That said, Canada’s emphasis on “mutually beneficial partnerships” — echoing China’s language on Africa — is notable, especially as western donors pull back. However, without a coherent development focus, this principle may be viewed as transactional rather than strategic.

    The strategy provides a foundation to build from, but it enters a competitive arena. To build meaningful partnerships in Africa, Canada will need a more focused approach grounded in robust market research, sharper priorities and an informed understanding of Africa’s political and economic realities as well as its geopolitical context.

    As a researcher focused on Africa-China relations, I see important lessons Canada can draw from China’s engagement in Africa.

    Cautious Canada vs. confident China

    Over the past two decades, China has become Africa’s largest trading partner, with trade volumes reaching US$295 billion in 2024.

    Backed by state financing, Chinese firms have built roads, ports, railways, dams and telecom infrastructure across the continent. This presence is no accident: for the past 30 years, every Chinese foreign minister’s first trip abroad has been to Africa.

    Canada’s footprint, by contrast, remains modest. Canada’s merchandise trade with Africa was about $15 billion in 2024. Canada aspires to become a serious economic partner, but its commercial presence in Africa has been limited.

    Notably, while China is often criticized in western media, its image in Africa is more positive. Many African leaders and citizens see China as a pragmatic partner that delivers visible infrastructure and investment.

    China’s positioning as a fellow developing country also contrasts sharply with western models that often carry patronizing overtones. China’s readiness to finance large-scale projects in Africa with limited political strings attached has earned good will, even as concerns rightly persist about transparency, debt and governance.

    Emphasizing Canada’s differences

    Canada should take these dynamics seriously. The narrative of “countering China” in Africa, often promoted by western governments, is ineffective. It overlooks African agency, reduces the continent to a site of great power rivalry and fails to acknowledge that African governments are actively pursuing their choice of partners, instead of a single partner of choice.

    Rather than compete with China, Canada can be different. While Chinese infrastructure projects often align with African priorities, my own work on Chinese engagement in Ghana’s energy projects shows that these projects are often negotiated behind closed doors, with few accountability mechanisms and scant transparency in financing. These gaps create space for Canada to offer a distinct and credible alternative.

    Canada’s approach can be different, but it should be no less strategic. It may not match China in scale, but it can offer commercial partnerships rooted in transparency, accountability and collaboration with partners, including those from China.

    Many African governments and civil society entities are calling for exactly this kind of engagement, particularly as citizens demand greater scrutiny over foreign investment. By focusing on responsible business practices, labour standards, environmental safeguards and good governance, Canada can develop a values-based model of economic engagement.

    Despite this potential, Canada’s new Africa Strategy lacks financial commitment. Canada’s 2022 Indo-Pacific Strategy was backed by a $2.3 billion envelope. The Africa Strategy’s success will ultimately depend on its ability to mobilize concrete resources and sustained engagement.

    The strategy rightly points to Africa’s economic potential, but stronger links to Canada’s domestic priorities, such as a workforce strategy, a trade road map and implementation tools, would enhance its impact.

    References to the AfCFTA are promising, but Canadian businesses need clearer guidance and support. Realizing the strategy’s goals will require measurable targets, dedicated programming and sustained investment.

    A different kind of engagement

    Canada’s past engagement in Africa has been rooted in diplomacy, development co-operation and peacekeeping. These remain valuable, but today’s African leaders are also seeking trade, investment and private-sector partnerships.

    To become a trusted economic partner, Canada should engage with purpose by introducing targeted financing tools — such as credit lines or investment guarantees — to help Canadian businesses manage risk and seize opportunities aligned with AfCFTA.



    Read more:
    African countries could unlock billions in local and global trade – what’s working and what’s not

    It should also focus on strategic sectors where it already has strengths, like clean energy, health innovation, fintech, agri-business and infrastructure.

    By investing in robust research and in dialogue with the African diaspora, business leaders and governance institutions, Canada strengthens commercial ties while prioritizing transparency, accountability and collaboration. Co-operation in innovation (for example, joint research on climate-smart agriculture or vaccines) could also yield benefits for both sides.

    In an increasing multipolar environment, Africa is not waiting for Canada. It’s assessing and comparing competing external partners. Canada’s ability to position itself as a viable alternative depends not on replicating China’s scale, but on seeing Africa as a true partner and offering mutual partnerships that appeal to Africans and Canadian alike.

    The new Africa Strategy sets an important tone for renewed engagement, but its success will depend on real investment and implementation, which so far lacks dedicated funding. Filling these gaps should be the next step, regardless of who wins Monday’s election.

    Isaac Odoom 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 Canada can learn from China on effectively engaging with Africa – https://theconversation.com/what-canada-can-learn-from-china-on-effectively-engaging-with-africa-252894

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Complaining is career suicide’: the hidden mental health crisis turning our screen industry upside down

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Hegedus, Associate Professor, Griffith Film School, Griffith University

    Shutterstock

    The Australian screen industry is often associated with fun, creativity and perhaps even glamour. But our new Pressure Point Report reveals a more troubling reality: a pervasive mental health crisis, which could see the screen industry lose a significant number of workers in the near future.

    The two-year study led by Griffith University found burnout levels mirroring those found among healthcare workers.

    Of the 864 survey responses we analysed, 72% said the screen industry is not a mentally healthy place to work, 36% frequently considered quitting in the past six months, and 25% said they would likely quit within the next six months.

    The human toll of creativity

    Working in film and television industry has been glamourised, with many aspiring creatives willing to endure difficult conditions to be part of making screen magic.

    In a fast-paced environment, where budgets and timelines are squeezed, half of the survey respondents reported facing constant unreasonable deadlines, and 57% described themselves as completely drained by the end of the day.

    Even more alarming, 59% struggled with work-life balance, having “little to no life outside of work”, and 62% felt pressured to not claim basic entitlements such as sick leave or holiday pay.

    As one participant told us:

    I’ve missed birthdays, weddings, and my kid’s school events because of impossible deadlines that could have been managed better with proper planning.

    Historically, the industry has relied on workers’ passion to offset poor conditions. However, we’re now seeing a breaking point where even the most dedicated professionals are questioning if it’s worth the personal cost.

    A culture of silence

    The concerning statistics from our study uncover an underlying culture of misconduct by both practitioners and supervisors. Almost half of respondents experienced bullying in the past year, while 35% encountered sexual harassment or discrimination.

    More troubling still, 36% of victims never formally reported incidents. They feared career damage, or that nothing would be done.

    One respondent confided:

    after witnessing how others were treated when they spoke up, I decided to stay quiet about my own experiences. It feels like complaining is career suicide in this industry.

    This response echoes many of the other voices we heard from. Such experiences can lead to a toxic cycle in which unchecked workplace behaviours further damage people’s mental health across the industry.

    Inequality compounds the problem

    Our research demonstrates the mental health burden falls disproportionately on already marginalised groups.

    Women face higher rates of unmanageable workload (54% compared to 38% for men) and poorer work/life balance. They also reported sexual harassment at more than triple the rate of men.

    LGBTQIA+ practitioners are significantly worse off, too. They experience elevated rates of depression and sleep issues.

    Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, culturally and linguistically diverse practitioners, and those living with a disability also face significantly higher rates of negative experiences.

    The highest rates of adverse interactions were experienced by neurodivergent professionals and those with pre-existing mental health conditions. Many of them told us that others routinely disregard their professional opinions.

    Beyond ‘wellness workshops’

    “This industry needs more than a quick fix — it needs real, lasting change,” one veteran crew member emphasised. “That means calling out toxic behaviour, backing workers with proper support, and creating fair conditions where people are treated with respect.”

    Our study highlights that surface-level solutions, such as isolated mental health workshops, can’t address the industry’s systemic problems.

    Three-quarters of industry workers reported needing mental health support specifically because of their work. We have also found deep flaws in how productions are structured – and a need for the entire industry to see film sets as workplaces just like any other.

    Genuine structural change is needed to stop the talent drain currently facing the screen industry.

    A wake-up call

    We recently presented our findings at Mental Health Matters: A Screen Leaders’ Summit, to a number of screen industry leaders, from producers to screen funding agency representatives.

    The summit discussed potential reform models from other high-stress industries, including the construction industry’s MATES program and the UK Film and TV Charity’s Whole Picture Toolkit.

    Doing more for Australia’s screen industry matters, not just because it produces entertainment for us — but because it captures our national identity and gives us a global voice.

    An exodus of talent would threaten both the quantity and quality of local content. Australia has worked hard to position itself as a global production hub, attracting major international projects and Hollywood blockbusters that create jobs and build expertise.

    If nearly a quarter of the workforce exits, the industry would severely diminish its capacity to capitalise on these opportunities.

    Peter Hegedus receives funding from Screen Queensland for developing and producing documentaries.

    Bobbi-Lea Dionysius receives funding from Screen Queensland for developing and producing documentaries and VR projects. She is affiliated with Women in Film & TV (WIFT).

    – ref. ‘Complaining is career suicide’: the hidden mental health crisis turning our screen industry upside down – https://theconversation.com/complaining-is-career-suicide-the-hidden-mental-health-crisis-turning-our-screen-industry-upside-down-254593

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Forming new habits can take longer than you think. Here are 8 tips to help you stick with them

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Singh, Research Fellow, Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia

    SarahMcEwan/Shutterstock

    If you’ve ever tried to build a new habit – whether that’s exercising more, eating healthier, or going to bed earlier – you may have heard the popular claim that it only takes 21 days to form a habit.

    It’s a neat idea. Short, encouraging and full of promise. But there’s just one problem: it’s not true.

    The 21-day myth can be traced back to Maxwell Maltz, a plastic surgeon in the 1960s, who observed it took about three weeks for his patients to adjust to physical changes. This idea was later picked up and repeated in self-help books, eventually becoming accepted wisdom.

    But as psychologists and behavioural scientists have since discovered, habit formation is much more complex.

    How long does it really take?

    A 2010 study followed volunteers trying to build simple routines – such as drinking water after breakfast or eating a daily piece of fruit – and found it took a median of 66 days for the behaviour to become automatic.

    We recently reviewed several studies looking at how long it took people to form health-related habits. We found, on average, it took around two to five months.

    Specifically, the studies that measured time to reach automaticity (when a behaviour becomes second nature) found that habit formation took between 59 and 154 days. Some people developed a habit in as few as four days. Others took nearly a year.

    This wide range highlights that habit formation isn’t one-size-fits-all. It depends on what the behaviour is, how often it’s repeated, how complex it is, and who’s doing it.



    Read more:
    Here’s what happens in your brain when you’re trying to make or break a habit

    What determines whether a habit will stick?

    Habit strength plays a key role in consistency. A 2021 systematic review focused on physical activity and found the stronger the habit (meaning the more automatic and less effortful the behaviour felt) the more likely people were to exercise regularly.

    It’s not entirely surprising that easy, low-effort behaviours such as drinking water or taking a daily vitamin tend to form faster than complex ones like training for a marathon.

    But whatever the habit, research shows sticking to it is not just about boosting motivation or willpower. Interventions that actively support habit formation – through repetition, cues and structure – are much more effective for creating lasting change.

    For example, programs that encourage people to schedule regular exercise at the same time each day, or apps that send reminders to drink water after every meal, help build habits by making the behaviour easier to repeat and harder to forget.

    Small, everyday actions can grow into powerful routines.
    areporter/Shutterstock

    Our research, which drew on data from more than 2,600 people, showed habit-building interventions can make a real difference across a range of behaviours – from flossing and healthy eating to regular exercise.

    But what stood out most was that even small, everyday actions can grow into powerful routines, when repeated consistently. It’s not about overhauling your life overnight, but about steadily reinforcing behaviours until they become second nature.

    8 tips for building lasting habits

    If you’re looking to build a new habit, here are some science-backed tips to help them stick:

    1. Give it time. Aim for consistency over 60 days. It’s not about perfection – missing a day won’t reset the clock.

    2. Make it easy. Start small. Choose a behaviour you can realistically repeat daily.

    3. Attach your new habit to an existing routine. That is, make the new habit easier to remember by linking it to something you already do – such as flossing right before you brush your teeth.

    4. Track your progress. Use a calendar or app to tick off each successful day.

    5. Build in rewards, for example making a special coffee after a morning walk or watching an episode of your favourite show after a week of consistent workouts. Positive emotions help habits stick, so celebrate small wins.

    6. Morning is best. Habits practised in the morning tend to form more reliably than those attempted at night. This may be because people typically have more motivation and fewer distractions earlier in the day, making it easier to stick to new routines before daily demands build up.

    7. Personal choice boosts success. People are more likely to stick with habits they choose themselves.

    8. Repetition in a stable context is key. Performing the same behaviour in the same situation (such as walking right after lunch each day) increases the chances it will become automatic.

    Habits practised in the morning tend to form more reliably than those attempted at night.
    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Why the 21-day myth matters

    Believing habits form in 21 days sets many people up to fail. When change doesn’t “click” within three weeks, it’s easy to feel like you’re doing something wrong. This can lead to frustration, guilt and giving up entirely.

    By contrast, understanding the real timeline can help you stay motivated when things feel slow.

    Evidence shows habit formation usually takes at least two months, and sometimes longer. But it also shows change is possible.

    Our research and other evidence confirm that repeated, intentional actions in stable contexts really do become automatic. Over time, new behaviours can feel effortless and deeply ingrained.

    So whether you’re trying to move more, eat better, or improve your sleep, the key isn’t speed – it’s consistency. Stick with it. With time, the habit will stick with you.

    Ashleigh E. Smith receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and a Dementia Australia Research Foundation Henry Brodaty Mid-Career Fellowship.

    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. Forming new habits can take longer than you think. Here are 8 tips to help you stick with them – https://theconversation.com/forming-new-habits-can-take-longer-than-you-think-here-are-8-tips-to-help-you-stick-with-them-255118

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Arsenic is everywhere – but new detection methods could help save lives

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Magdalena Wajrak, Senior Lecturer in Chemistry, Edith Cowan University

    Arsenic is a nasty poison that once reigned as the ultimate weapon of deception. In the 18th century, it was the poison of choice for those wanting to kill their enemies and spouses, favoured for its undetectable nature and the way its symptoms mimicked common gastrointestinal issues like stomach pain, diarrhoea and vomiting.

    One of the most famous deaths believed to be due to arsenic poisoning was that of French general Napoleon Bonaparte in 1821. While there’s still considerable controversy over the definite cause of Napoleon’s death, there is enough evidence that arsenic did at least contribute.

    Analysis of Napoleon’s hair in 1961 found it contained more than ten times the normal concentrations of arsenic. The most likely source of exposure was from an arsenic compound used as a pigment in wallpapers in the 18th century.

    Centuries later, arsenic is still widespread in the world, and causing major health problems. But thankfully scientists – including myself – are developing more effective ways of measuring arsenic to reduce the harm it causes to people.

    A tasteless poison

    Arsenic in its elemental state is a grey, brittle solid. Its nucleus has 33 protons and 42 neutrons, giving it similar chemical properties to phosphorus.

    The elemental form of arsenic is actually non-toxic; it is the compounds of arsenic that are poisonous. Pure elements have a tendency to bond to other elements and form compounds, because this provides elements with more stability.

    When arsenic combines with oxygen, it forms an extremely toxic compound called arsenic trioxide. Only 70mg of this odourless and tasteless compound is needed to kill an adult human.

    When arsenic enters our bodies, it can have major impacts on DNA. Phosphorous is an essential component of the backbone of DNA, but arsenic can replace it. This can lead to genome instability and a higher risk of genetic mutations, which can ultimately increase the risk of developing cancer.

    Arsenic also inhibits the enzymes necessary for bodily functions.

    When arsenic is inhaled or ingested, it is rapidly distributed around the body. It initially remains in the liver before being stored in the kidneys, then the spleen and lungs. Our bodies are very clever, however, and have a process capable of removing very small amounts of arsenic through urine.

    But that process takes time. So if you are exposed to high levels of arsenic, your body will not be able to eliminate it fast enough and damage will occur.

    One of the most famous deaths believed to be due to arsenic poisoning was that of Napoleon Bonaparte.
    Jacques-Louis David/Wikipedia

    Arsenic is everywhere

    The main environmental sources of arsenic are volcanoes and the erosion of mineral deposits. This can contaminate groundwater sources, as happened in Bangladesh where the building of tube wells for irrigation and drinking water from the mid 20th century onwards accidentally caused the “world’s worst mass poisoning”.

    Human sources of arsenic in the environment are predominantly from smelters of copper, gold and iron ores. These smelters often use arsenic compounds such as copper arsenate to treat and preserve wood. They also use pesticides and antiparasitic chemicals, some of which contain arsenic.

    We also find very small amounts of arsenic compounds in LED lights and in bronze.

    The most common sources of exposure to arsenic are from cigarettes and food products. Foods grown in arsenic-contaminated soil or exposed to contaminated water will absorb arsenic.

    For example, rice is very susceptible to absorbing elements from soil and water, so can contain high levels of arsenic if grown in contaminated areas. However, rice is generally safe to eat and rinsing it removes most of the arsenic it might have absorbed.

    Groundwater in Bangladesh is heavily contaminated with arsenic, posing a major public health risk.
    HM Shahidul Islam/Shutterstock

    Detecting arsenic

    Being able to detect and monitor arsenic concentrations in our environment and in our bodies is important for our health.

    However, common analytical techniques for arsenic detection are laboratory-based and require complicated infrastructure – such as constant access to argon gas to produce a plasma – and a specifically trained chemist or lab technician.

    Thankfully scientists are developing new techniques. These are not only reliable and accurate, but highly portable and simple enough to be used outside laboratories to test for arsenic in environmental, biological and industrial samples.

    One of these is an electrochemical technique, known as “anodic stripping voltammetry”.

    This technique can detect trace amounts of arsenic. It works by measuring the minute electric current produced by the poison. The amount of current produced is directly proportional to the concentration of arsenic in the sample.

    Being able to quickly, simply and accurately detect arsenic in, say, drinking water, could reduce people’s exposure to it. In turn, this would help reduce the likelihood of future health problems, such as skin cancers.

    It is impossible to eliminate arsenic from our environment. So constant monitoring of arsenic levels in the environment and food products is the best way to reduce our exposure to this notorious poison.

    Magdalena Wajrak 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. Arsenic is everywhere – but new detection methods could help save lives – https://theconversation.com/arsenic-is-everywhere-but-new-detection-methods-could-help-save-lives-248547

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New survey shows business outlook is weakening and uncertainty rising as the trade war bites

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Simon, Adjunct Fellow in Economics, Macquarie University

    Vivid Brands/Shutterstock

    Uncertainty is everywhere these days.

    There is even uncertainty about the uncertainty.

    The Reserve Bank of Australia, for example, noted in the minutes from its April 1 meeting:

    The most significant development in the period leading up to the meeting had been the significant rise in uncertainty about global trade policy, although the effect of this on sentiment and economic developments in Australia was not yet clear.

    A new monthly business survey, developed by a team of researchers at Macquarie University, the Business Outlook Scenarios Survey (BOSS), provides some clarity.

    A key feature of the survey, which distinguishes it from other business surveys, is its focus on uncertainty about the future, not just expectations about the most likely outcome.

    The most recent survey was conducted between April 10–17, after the announcement of the US “liberation day” tariffs on April 2. The results are concerning, but not yet alarming.

    Big rise in uncertainty

    The results suggest there has been a significant increase in business uncertainty stemming from the tariff and geopolitical tensions.

    Our survey asks roughly 500 Australian businesses about their expectations for, and perceptions of uncertainty about, key business and macroeconomic conditions.

    Running since June 2024, it tracks a sample that is representative of Australian businesses. It surveys key decision makers, such as chief financial officers and business owners, who have a detailed knowledge of their own business, and a general knowledge of the broader economy.

    The jump in uncertainty is leading to an increase in pessimistic views about businesses’ prospects. Moreover, these expectations are surrounded by elevated uncertainty.

    While this has yet to translate into plans to reduce employment and investment, businesses on average expect their costs will rise, and plan to counter the effect through increasing prices.

    More importantly, uncertainty generally leads people to defer decisions, and we see evidence of that in the April survey. Firms on average are not expecting to reduce investment or employment – but neither are they planning on increasing it.

    Inflation worries are off the boil

    When asked about the main source of uncertainty over the next 12 months, businesses used to point to inflation. In June 2024, more than 65% of businesses cited inflation as the main source of business uncertainty. While this is still a significant concern, it has fallen to 48% of respondents.

    More dramatically, however, geopolitical risk and tariffs combined were nominated by 52% of businesses in April as one of the main sources of uncertainty. This is up from about 20% of firms in June last year.

    This global uncertainty is translating into uncertainty about individual business conditions. There is an increase in the percentage of businesses that expect deteriorating conditions for their business. And there is also an increase in uncertainty about the likely outcomes for their industry conditions, product demand, and access to credit and business inputs.

    Risks for hiring and investment

    While deteriorating expectations are a source of concern, the rise in uncertainty is like a one-two punch. Businesses that are uncertain about the future will stop hiring or investing until they have a better idea of what the future holds.

    Indeed, during the Great Depression in the 1930s, uncertainty about the future exacerbated the initial downturn and helped turn it from a recession into a depression. This paralysing uncertainty is what led US President Franklin D. Roosevelt to utter the famous line “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

    While the situation in Australia is not nearly that dire, you can see the consequences of the uncertainty in businesses’ expectations for both their own businesses and the economy more generally.

    In light of the tariff tensions, the majority of businesses are adopting a “wait and see” approach and expect to keep employment and investment unchanged in the next 12 months. The majority (62%) also expect their costs will be higher and, consequently, that they will have to raise their prices.

    What it means for the RBA

    Most businesses surveyed also anticipate higher inflation and lower economic growth in Australia. That is, stagflation.

    This has important consequences for the next Reserve Bank board meeting in May.

    The March quarter consumer price index, to be released on April 30, is unlikely to show the effects of the trade tensions. But monetary policy needs to be set in a forward-looking manner. That means business expectations of higher costs, prices and inflation over the next 12 months could argue for higher interest rates than otherwise.

    Complicating the picture is the expectation of slower economic growth, which would usually argue for lower interest rates.

    On balance, the majority of businesses surveyed in April expect the Reserve Bank to lower the cash rate in response to the trade war.

    Regardless, what is undeniable is that uncertainty has increased in the last few months. And that means that policymakers need to deal with the uncertainty itself. Slightly lower interest rates or a little extra government spending cannot, of themselves, overcome the paralysing effects of uncertainty.

    As such, the Reserve Bank and the government need to talk about not just their central expectations, but their strategy for dealing with the uncertainty around those expectations.

    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. New survey shows business outlook is weakening and uncertainty rising as the trade war bites – https://theconversation.com/new-survey-shows-business-outlook-is-weakening-and-uncertainty-rising-as-the-trade-war-bites-255101

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Here’s how to make your backyard safer and cooler next summer

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pui Kwan Cheung, Research Fellow in Urban Microclimates, The University of Melbourne

    Varavin88, Shutterstock

    Our backyards should be safe and inviting spaces all year round, including during the summer months.

    But the choices we make about garden design and maintenance, such as whether to have artificial turf or real grass for a lawn, can have serious consequences. Children, elderly people and pets are particularly susceptible to burns from contact with artificial turf on a hot day.

    Watering your lawn or planting a shady tree can also dramatically change how hot your backyard feels in summer. Ultimately, these factors will influence how much time you and your family spend outside.

    No matter where in the world you live, it is never too late to find out how to make your backyard safer and cooler next summer.

    The case against artificial turf

    Artificial turf or synthetic grass, commonly used on sports fields, has become popular in private outdoor spaces such as backyards.

    People may think it’s cheaper and easier to maintain than real turf. Perhaps they like the idea of saving water and having the look of lawn without the hassle of mowing and fertilising it.

    But this type of plastic surface is known to become very hot on a sunny day.

    We wanted to find out just how hot artificial turf can get in a suburban backyard over summer.

    So we set up an experiment to compare the temperatures of artificial turf, dry natural turf, and watered natural turf in Melbourne. We took surface temperature measurements continuously for 51 days during the summer of 2023–24.

    The research was part of a project demonstrating the benefits of green space in residential properties. The project received funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia, a grower-owned not-for-profit research and development corporation. That funding, in part, came from three water authorities.

    Thermal imaging reveals artificial turf is hotter than natural turf on a hot sunny day.
    Pui Kwan Cheung

    Feeling the heat

    In adults, irreversible burns occur when the skin is in contact with a surface that is 48°C or hotter for ten minutes.

    The temperature needed to cause skin burns in children is approximately 2°C lower, because their skin is thinner and more sensitive.

    Contact skin burns due to the high surface temperature of artificial turf has been identified as a health risk.

    In our latest research, the artificial turf reached a scorching 72°C, which is sufficient to cause irreversible skin burns in just ten seconds. In contrast, the real turf was never hot enough to cause such burns (maximum temperature of 39°C).

    Over the course of our experiment, the artificial turf was hot enough to cause adults irreversible skin burns for almost four hours a day. While adults might be expected to move away from the heat before it burns, vulnerable people such as babies and the elderly, as well as pets, are most at risk because they may be unable to move away.

    We also took measurements in real backyards on a hot sunny summer’s day. We compared the risk of skin burns on four different surfaces: artificial turf, mulch, timber and real turf. The only surface that did not get hot enough to cause skin burns in adults was real turf.

    Watering the grass can cool your backyard in more ways than one.
    Stephen Livesley

    Why should I water the lawn?

    Grass and other plants release water vapour from little holes in their leaves into the atmosphere. This process helps the plant maintain a liveable leaf temperature on a hot day, but it also cools the air around the leaves.

    It is a good idea to water your lawn throughout summer for two reasons:

    1. well-watered lawn is healthier, stays green for longer, and has more leaves to release water vapour into the air (“transpire”).

    2. more water is available to evaporate from the soil and leaves, adding to the cooling effect.

    If you’re worried about wasting drinking water on your lawn, you can install a rainwater tank or household water recycling plant. Having access to alternative water sources will become increasingly important as the world warms and the climate dries.

    More shade will cool your backyard.
    Stephen Livesley

    What about shade?

    The most effective way to make you feel cooler in your backyard is to provide adequate shade. This reduces the amount of sun energy hitting your body or the ground, heating the surface and warming the surrounding air.

    A single tree can lower the level of heat stress from extreme to moderate. This may be the difference between wanting to spend time outside on a hot day and avoiding your backyard altogether.

    Even small trees can still make you feel cooler, if they provide some shade.

    However, too-dense tree canopy cover may prevent air flow – so there is a happy medium. Air flow is necessary to move the heat away from your backyard and cool your body down.

    Taking all the above measures will keep your backyard safe and cool throughout summer. This will allow you and your family to spend more quality time in your backyard, cool your home, and improve your quality of life.

    Pui Kwan Cheung receives funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia (Hort Innovation) for the research project “demonstrating the benefits of increasing available green infrastructure in residential homes”, which is relevant to this article.
    The project involves co-investment from South East Water, Greater Western Water, Yarra Valley Water, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (Victoria), Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (New South Wales), The University of Melbourne, and the Australian Government. Hort Innovation is the grower-owned, not-for-profit research and development corporation for Australian horticulture.

    Stephen Livesley receives funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia, the Australian Research Council and various water authorities.

    – ref. Here’s how to make your backyard safer and cooler next summer – https://theconversation.com/heres-how-to-make-your-backyard-safer-and-cooler-next-summer-254928

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Democracy on display or a public eyesore? The case for cracking down on election corflutes

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Hughes, Lecturer in Marketing, Research School of Management, Australian National University

    In my time researching political advertising, one common communication method that often generates complaints is the proliferation of campaign corflutes.

    Politicians love them. Not so, many members of the general public. People are so fed up with candidate posters that there are numerous tales of late night vandalism, including deliberate acts of road rage aimed at destroying them.

    And yet, at every single election – local, state and federal – the hated signs spring up once again to populate front gardens, streetscapes and open spaces.

    Given how divisive they are, why do politicians persist with them? What are the laws around their use? And is South Australia on the right track by banning corflutes in public places?

    It’s a jungle out there

    To begin with, all corflutes must comply with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), which includes displaying a “written and authorised” statement

    that enables voters to know the source of the electoral or political communication.

    Posters can’t mislead voters regarding candidates’ political affiliation. In 2022, corflutes authorised by Advance Australia in the ACT were ruled misleading because they strongly implied independent Senate candidate David Pocock was running for the Greens.

    But in terms of size, number, and placement – welcome to the wild west of Australian political communications.

    Size varies from the standard 60cm x 90cm corflute, to much larger signs like the one promoting Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer that was stolen by the husband of Teal MP Monique Ryan in the seat of Kooyong.

    Neither the number nor the placement of signs are regulated by electoral law, other than a requirement they not be placed within 6 metres of a polling place.

    Corflutes are governed by local council laws and regulations relating to political signage. This leads to a wide variation around Australia. Some areas have no rules on number or placement, which is where you usually find the issues.

    By contrast, corflutes are strictly regulated in South Australia. Laws passed last year banned election posters from public infrastructure, though they are still permitted on private property.

    Democracy on show

    Corflutes have several purposes, especially for new candidates.

    Independent Jessie Price, who is running for Bean in the ACT, tells me corflutes are important for her to quickly achieve name and face recognition in the campaign.

    Then there is their design. Campaign corflutes have traditionally incorporated faces, colours and slogans. These days, they can also include QR codes, URLs, and social media handles. These formal elements also aid differentiation and awareness.

    Next is the strategy of placement. Being an offline method, you can’t hit “skip” when you see one. And they are often used as a way of marking out turf, especially when placed in front yards.

    For minor parties and independents, they are an affordable way to help level the playing field against Labor and the Coalition. In a way, they act as a basic barometer of the strength of our democracy.

    Do they work?

    Yes. And no.

    When it comes to design, corflutes that closely follow the same principles used for road signs work the most effectively. This is because of the speed at which we process information.

    Research has found that around two seconds is needed to absorb the details printed on signs. Up to five seconds’ exposure is needed to commit the information to short-term memory. Repeated exposure to the same sign helps when it comes to recall.

    That is why colour, font size and word count are all important. The bigger the font, the better the chances of it being seen from further away, and hitting that two-second count. For example, on a 100km/h road, letters need to be at least 35cm in size.

    The same rules apply to election posters. Ideally, an effective corflute would have a single name in 70cm white font on a red background. Two colours for contrast, large lettering and using only two or three words, would have the best chance of being remembered.

    Being novel with design, such as independent candidate Kim Huynh’s striking corflute in the 2016 ACT election, can also boost awareness and differentiation.

    Just an eyesore

    Corflutes will only work if the voter is already predisposed to the candidate being promoted. If that’s not the case, the sign may have the opposite affect by repeatedly reminding the voter of a person they don’t like.

    For some, they will hate corflutes regardless of the candidates. That is because the outdoors is the last true escape from political communications in an era of digital and online advertising that runs up until election day. Some also dislike how politicians can get away with it, while most others would be fined.

    Do they actually change behaviour? Not directly, but they raise awareness and change perceptions towards candidates and parties, which is their ultimate objective.

    Time for a rethink

    There is a case to reform the electoral laws to regulate the size, placement, and number of corflutes.

    One proposal worth considering would be a strict limit of 50 standard-sized signs per candidate, per electorate and erected in designated places. This would mean more equal opportunity for minor parties and independents, and help reduce public anger over the visual pollution we see at election time.

    No matter how much people hate corflutes, they do serve a higher purpose post election. Come Sunday, they will be much sought after as tomato stakes and flooring for chook pens.

    Andrew Hughes 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. Democracy on display or a public eyesore? The case for cracking down on election corflutes – https://theconversation.com/democracy-on-display-or-a-public-eyesore-the-case-for-cracking-down-on-election-corflutes-255219

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How ICE is becoming a secret police force under the Trump administration

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lee Morgenbesser, Associate Professor, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University

    Secret police are a quintessential feature of authoritarian regimes. From Azerbaijan’s State Security Service to Zimbabwe’s Central Intelligence Organisation, these agencies typically target political opponents and dissidents through covert surveillance, imprisonment and physical violence.

    In contrast to the regular police and armed forces, secret police primarily use preemptive repression to thwart threats to the government.

    In Nazi Germany, for example, Gestapo informants penetrated all levels of society, producing an atmosphere of distrust among those against Adolf Hitler. In Uganda, Idi Amin’s State Research Bureau employed sophisticated spying equipment and intercepted mail at the post office to root out supposed saboteurs.

    In Syria, Bashar al-Assad relied on the General Intelligence Directorate to oversee a network of torture centres. And in Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro has used the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (Sebin) to spy on opponents overseas, often running operations out of diplomatic missions.

    Since US President Donald Trump took power in January, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has become a far more visible and fearsome force on American streets.

    Though ICE is ostensibly still bound by constitutional limits, the way it has been operating bears the hallmarks of a secret police force in the making.

    As an expert on authoritarian regimes, I’ve studied historical and contemporary secret police forces extensively across Africa, Asia and Europe. They typically meet five criteria:

    • they’re a police force targeting political opponents and dissidents

    • they’re not controlled by other security agencies and answer directly to the dictator

    • the identity of their members and their operations are secret

    • they specialise in political intelligence and surveillance operations

    • they carry out arbitrary searches, arrests, interrogations, indefinite detentions, disappearances and torture.

    How close is ICE to becoming a secret police force? Let’s consider each of these criteria.

    Targeting dissidents

    ICE has used the pretext of combating antisemitism to target dissidents. A branch of the agency previously used to target drug smugglers and human traffickers has reportedly been directed to scan social media for posts sympathetic to Hamas.

    On March 8, ICE arrested the prominent pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident. It was a similar story for Rumeysa Ozturk, a university student grabbed off the street on March 25 by ICE agents.

    Trump has cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as the legal pretext for ICE’s actions in these cases and others. The law allows the US government to deport anyone whose presence has “adverse foreign policy consequences” for the country.

    Because Khalil and others are being targeted for their activism, legal scholars say the government appears to be “retaliating” against constitutionally protected free speech it disagrees with.

    Directly controlled by a dictator

    While ICE does not report directly to Trump, the agency is controlled by people who have shown intense loyalty to him.

    ICE is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which is overseen by stalwart Trump ally Kristi Noem. She is supported by Tom Homan, a former ICE director who Trump appointed as his “border czar” in November 2024.

    Despite a court order barring the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador, Homan has remained defiant:

    We are not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think.

    The pertinent question now is whether Noem or Homan would refuse to follow a dictate from Trump in the face of a direct court order.

    Opaque operations

    ICE agents are increasingly operating in secret. The individuals who took Ozturk off the street in a widely shared video claimed to be police officers, even though they were in plain clothes and face marks.

    Similarly, ICE agents in plain clothes detained two men during a raid on a courthouse in Charlottesville, Virginia, on April 22. When two bystanders asked to see a warrant, they were ordered not to “impede” the agents’ lawful duties. ICE later said the two women would be prosecuted.

    Also last week, ICE agents attempted to arrest a man at a Wisconsin courthouse without a warrant. After a judge intervened, she was arrested herself by the FBI and charged with two felonies.

    This shroud of opacity has been accompanied by an end to local agency liaison meetings aimed at helping people seek answers to ICE’s actions.

    Surveillance capabilities

    ICE is organised into two distinct law enforcement components, giving it both political intelligence gathering and surveillance capabilities.

    Its Homeland Security Investigations arm includes an intelligence division, while its Enforcement and Removal Operations arm uses third-party companies such as Geo Group, Giant Oak, and Palantir to conduct mass surveillance.

    Most worryingly, ICE is trying to procure greater intelligence and surveillance capabilities by soliciting pitches from private companies to monitor threats across the internet.

    According to a procurement document, contractors would be directed to focus on the backgrounds of social media users and use facial recognition capabilities to gather information on people. Criticisms of ICE itself would be monitored, too.

    Unlawful policing

    There has been a stream of reports exposing how ICE is conducting arbitrary searches, arrests, interrogations, and indefinite detentions.

    Some of the most egregious reported examples include:

    Since Trump’s inauguration, at least three people have died in ICE detention facilities, the latest in a string of fatalities in recent years.

    Prolonged solitary confinement is reportedly widespread. UN experts say this can amount to torture.

    Potentially expanded scope

    Overall, the evidence shows ICE meets most of the criteria for being a secret police force. It has yet to target political opponents, which I define narrowly as members of the Democratic Party. And it is not directly controlled by Trump, although the current structure provides him with plausible deniability.

    While the agency is far from resembling history’s most feared secret police forces, there have so far been few constraints on how it operates.

    The worst may be yet to come. A budget bill making its way through Congress would provide ICE with up to US$175 billion (A$274 billion) in funding over the next decade. (Its current annual budget is US$9 billion, or A$14 billion.) This would supercharge its use of surveillance, imprisonment and physical violence.

    When combined with a potential shift towards targeting US citizens for dissent and disobedience, ICE is fast becoming a key piece in the repressive apparatus of American authoritarianism.

    Lee Morgenbesser 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 ICE is becoming a secret police force under the Trump administration – https://theconversation.com/how-ice-is-becoming-a-secret-police-force-under-the-trump-administration-255019

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Juggling dynamite? At 100 days in office, Donald Trump is no Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ronald W. Pruessen, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Toronto

    Watching United States President Donald Trump weave and chainsaw his way through the first 100 days of his second term in office, I’ve been reminded of what Anthony Eden, the United Kingdom’s foreign secretary in the 1930s and later its prime minister, once said about Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    FDR, Eden recalled in his memoirs, was “too like a conjurer, skilfully juggling balls of dynamite, whose nature he failed to understand.”

    The image fits the 47th president much better than the 32nd.

    The dynamite-wielding Trump

    Dynamite has certainly been exploding regularly since Trump took office in January. His actions include:



    Read more:
    How Project 2025 became the blueprint for Donald Trump’s second term

    For non-MAGA enthusiasts, it is easy to surmise — similar to Eden’s remarks on FDR — that Trump does not understand the potential damage of the dynamite he is not just juggling, but hurling.

    A case might be made that some lobs align with Trump’s personal penchant for retribution, or that the chainsaw is being wielded to make room in the federal budget for new tax cuts for the one per cent.

    But such calculations disregard deeply rooted American values like respect for the rule of law and the separation of powers.

    Trump’s actions could suggest a lust for mayhem apparently aimed at dismantling a century of efforts to shape a government that serves global security while also meeting the economic, social and health care needs of American citizens, including safety net provisions for senior citizens, children, farmers, veterans and others.

    Threats today, damage tomorrow

    His apparent fondness for dynamite is already having negative consequences, with seemingly little grasp of the likelihood of worse to come: today, he’s upending the lives of civil servants; tomorrow’s disruptions will likely include an attack on the services provided by agencies like the Social Security Administration and disruption of the flow of funds to many poor school districts.

    Today, the U.S. is struggling with a measles outbreak. But the personal beliefs of Health and Human Services Director Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a notorious vaccination and public health skeptic, doesn’t bode well for a fight against a rapidly evolving avian flu threat on the near horizon.

    Today’s stock and bond market volatility creates the possibility of a trade war catastrophe and damage to economic stability as the U.S. appears poised to disregard its longtime status as the world economy’s “safe haven.”

    The current tensions in what were once ironclad partnerships with allies that include Canada, the European Union and Ukraine — along with the whiplash reversal of American-Russian dynamics — are reminiscent of the global disruption in the 1930s that featured the Great Depression and the eruption of the Second World War.

    How FDR coped with explosions around him

    If Eden’s image of FDR as a dangerous juggler of dynamite might also apply to Trump, it fails to capture the essential attributes of the 32nd president’s White House career. Eden’s ego seems to have undercut his appraisal of FDR — compounded by his own failure to understand the historical developments that profoundly weakened the British Empire and brought his own career to an end.

    There’s no question dynamite was exploding in 1933, the start of FDR’s 12 years in the White House. But the Depression and its evolving consequences, not FDR’s personal impulses and misconceptions, created a tinderbox decade.

    One of Roosevelt’s great strengths, in fact, was his ability to recognize the acute dangers emanating from a fearful cortege of flaming fuses. Another was his success in turning insights into meaningful actions.

    Roosevelt knew — far better than his predecessor, Herbert Hoover — that the onset of the Depression would require dramatic actions and fundamental reforms.

    His New Deal expanded the government’s role in stimulating the economy (for example, the Public Works Administration), regulation (the Securities Exchange Commission), social welfare initiatives (the Social Security program) and infrastructure development (for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority).

    The Depression wasn’t fully eradicated — that didn’t happen until after war broke out — but the lives of millions of Americans still improved significantly.

    Of equal importance, FDR’s creative thinking and government transformations created building blocks for further post-war reforms, including Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society efforts three decades later.



    Read more:
    The Great Society: the forgotten reform movement

    Roosevelt also knew that the devastation of the Depression and the unparalleled destruction of the Second World War required a transformation of the global arena. He believed technology — air power especially — had created an integrated world. In his January 1943 State of the Union address, he said:

    “Wars grow in size, in death and destruction, and in the inevitability of engulfing all nations, in inverse ratio to the shrinking size of the world as a result of the conquest of the air.”

    Sharing responsibilities

    FDR believed the world he worked to create would be safer and more prosperous because multilateral organizations would encourage greater emphasis on shared resources and responsibilities. The United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank took shape during FDR’s presidency — as did long-term plans for decolonization and human rights initiatives.

    Roosevelt knew too — better than many of his White House successors — that the U.S. needed to share leadership responsibilities. He believed emphatically in multilateralism, recognizing the limits of American resources and power, and the pragmatism of compromising with the priorities of others, whether they were powerful states or colonial peoples.

    His “Four Policemen” approach to maintaining peace — comprising the U.S., the U.K., the Soviet Union and China — would sometimes create unpalatable situations. He was criticized harshly, for example, for naively opening the door to Soviet domination of eastern Europe via the Yalta agreement. Nonetheless, FDR focused on efforts he believed would avert another destructive cataclysm.

    FDR was an imperfect leader in various ways — in not appreciating, for example, how global leadership could result in arrogance. He did, however, understand the explosive domestic and international developments of the 20th century and sought constructive solutions to grave challenges.

    Trump, on the contrary, is seemingly prioritizing destruction over construction. Propelled by a “move fast and break things” mantra, there’s little evidence that he understands its pain nor the damaging consequences of his impulses.

    Ronald W. Pruessen has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. Juggling dynamite? At 100 days in office, Donald Trump is no Franklin D. Roosevelt – https://theconversation.com/juggling-dynamite-at-100-days-in-office-donald-trump-is-no-franklin-d-roosevelt-254773

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s first 100 days show him dictating the terms of press coverage − following Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán’s playbook for media control

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Adam G. Klein, Associate Professor of Communication and Media Studies, Pace University

    President Donald Trump shakes hands with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán during a meeting in the Oval Office on May 13, 2019 in Washington, DC. Mark Wilson/Getty Images

    Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stood before a captivated audience of conservative activists from the U.S. and laid out his vision for American politics.

    The Western media, he declared at a May 2022 special meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee in Budapest, are “the root of the problem.” The key to conservatives reclaiming power in the United States? “Have your own media.”

    Orbán spoke from experience, having systematically reshaped Hungary’s political landscape since 2010, largely by reining in the independent press and replacing it with a loyal media apparatus. His advice, though at odds with democratic values, was warmly embraced by his American admirers, including conservative journalists, podcasters and political leaders.

    Now, three years later, one particular political figure, President Donald Trump, appears to have taken Orbán’s words to heart, mimicking Orbán’s early actions and moving swiftly to dictate the terms of his own coverage.

    A protest by Hungarian civil society against Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government on Oct. 23, 2012.
    Photo by Dagmar Gester/ullstein bild via Getty Images

    New terms for the press

    In his first 100 days, Trump asserted new control over the press, starting with those who cover him daily.

    In February 2025, his administration barred The Associated Press from the Oval Office for using “Gulf of Mexico” rather than adopting the president’s newly named “Gulf of America.”

    Soon after, Trump’s team stripped the White House Correspondents’ Association of its authority to decide which outlets are in the presidential press pool, a role journalists have held for over a century.

    Then came a sweeping executive order in mid-March to dismantle government-funded news agencies, including Voice of America, the international broadcasting service. That same day, Trump went to the Department of Justice for a televised address, where he declared some of his negative press coverage was not just unfair but “totally illegal.” The president accused select media outlets of operating in “total coordination” to undermine him.

    “These networks and these newspapers are really no different than a highly paid political operative and it has to stop, it has to be illegal,” Trump told the Department of Justice staff, turning familiar grievances into what sounded like a call for action.

    Now, Trump has escalated those demands, calling on the Federal Communications Commission to punish CBS and revoke its license over a “60 Minutes” segment he didn’t like. He declared the network’s coverage “unlawful and illegal.”

    From sidelining reporters to seeking legal retribution, Trump’s actions reflect not a series of isolated moves but a coordinated effort at media overhaul – one aligned with his broader attempt to restructure national institutions.

    As a scholar who studies propaganda models and narrative control, I believe the likely source for this media overhaul playbook is Orbán.

    Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban waves as he walks onto the stage to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas on Aug. 4, 2022.
    AP Photo/LM Otero

    The Orbán model

    I’ve closely followed how Orbán consolidated control over the Hungarian press as prime minister, allowing him to project the illusion of media consensus and widespread support. His campaign began promptly after returning to power in 2010.

    With the backing of a new parliamentary majority, Orbán enacted a sweeping Media Act in 2011 that granted the state broad oversight powers. That meant a newly formed Media Council, staffed entirely by his ruling party, was given authority to fine news outlets for coverage they deemed “unbalanced or immoral.”

    This was not merely an effort to temper criticism; it was the opening move in a broader strategy to remake Hungarian media.

    The law drew sharp condemnation, most notably from journalists but also from the European Union. When Orbán later addressed the European Parliament, members protested by taping their mouths shut and holding signs that read “censored.”

    To his critics, Orbán claimed that Hungary’s “media regulation system” had “collapsed” and that it was his government’s duty to rebuild it. But for the press, this was no reconstruction.

    As one Hungarian journalist put it, “Orbán saw the media as a battlefield; occupied by enemy troops and crowded with territories for potential expansion.”

    Oligarchs take over media

    The real takeover came through a coordinated wave of media acquisitions.

    Like pieces on a chessboard, Orbán-friendly oligarchs scooped up major newspapers, TV channels and radio stations. His wealthy allies were systematic: They fired editorial teams, replaced critical voices with loyal ones and often triggered mass resignations from journalists unwilling to toe the party line.

    Many once-independent outlets were soon resurrected as pro-Orbán media.

    By 2018, the consolidation was complete.

    In a display of political choreography, nearly 500 privately owned media outlets were donated to a central holding company: KESMA – the Central European Press and Media Foundation. Run by Orbán’s allies, KESMA now dominates Hungary’s media landscape, delivering a uniform stream of pro-Orbán content, promoting what he calls his “illiberal” agenda.

    Orbán’s campaign offered a 21st-century model for media control – one rooted not in overt censorship but in narrative saturation. While some independent media remain, the vast chorus of pro-Orbán media now drowns out their dissent.

    It’s a model that has drawn admiration from right-wing figures around the world.

    American media personalities such as Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson have traveled to Budapest to meet with Orbán and study his playbook, while the Hungarian leader has become a star on the U.S. conservative circuit, speaking at Conservative Political Action Committee gatherings and forging ties with the MAGA movement and Trump.

    After joining him on the campaign trail last summer, Orbán boasted of his “deep involvement” in helping shape Trump’s upcoming agenda.

    Importing the playbook

    Reporter Brian Glenn from Real America’s Voice asks questions flattering to President Trump during an Oval Office press conference on Feb. 28, 2025.

    Looking back at the president’s first 100 days, it’s clear that Orbán’s tactics are now surfacing in Trump’s second term.

    Where Orbán passed a media law to penalize imbalanced reporting, Trump now calls certain coverage illegal, and his administration has begun investigations into at least one media outlet. He has also begun to sideline outlets that defy his agenda, as his press office continues denying access to wire services such as Reuters and Bloomberg.

    Where Orbán’s allies acquired and repurposed unfavorable media, Trump has found powerful media partners of his own, such as Elon Musk. Musk’s 2022 takeover of Twitter, now X, mirrors the strategy of Orbán’s billionaire allies, allowing the tech mogul to effectively transform the platform into a megaphone for Trump’s agenda.

    Finally, just as Orbán constructed a vast loyalist media network, Trump allies are expanding a parallel MAGA media universe designed to amplify and shield his message.

    That apparatus is now a fixture of the White House. As independent outlets such as AP and Reuters are shuffled out, a new crop of pro-Trump voices are ushered in. Among them: Steve Bannon’s War Room, Real America’s Voice and Lindell TV, founded by MyPillow CEO and Trump advocate Mike Lindell. These networks don’t just cover the administration − they celebrate it.

    Brian Glenn, a reporter with Real America’s Voice, was recently granted the first question in an Oval Office press event. He used it to praise Trump’s accomplishments and poll numbers: “All of your agenda that you ran on, you’re accomplishing that. You’ve got the support of the American people. … If you can comment on the latest Harvard poll, I’d appreciate that.”

    At another briefing, a Lindell TV correspondent asked press secretary Karoline Leavitt if she could share Trump’s fitness plan, remarking that he looked “healthier than ever,” and adding, “I’m sure everyone in this room can agree.”

    Agreement is precisely the point. By recasting the media in his image, Trump is building a press pool that will champion his message. It is Orbán’s illusion of consensus, and this is just the opening act.

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

    – ref. Trump’s first 100 days show him dictating the terms of press coverage − following Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán’s playbook for media control – https://theconversation.com/trumps-first-100-days-show-him-dictating-the-terms-of-press-coverage-following-hungarian-strongman-viktor-orbans-playbook-for-media-control-254050

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘White Lotus’ music: When talented creators strive to realize their visions, differences and chattering can erupt

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Deaville, Professor of Music, Carleton University

    After the first two seasons of The White Lotus (set respectively in Hawaii and Sicily), the buzz in the media and on social media typically focused on the selection of the next site for the award-winning show.

    Not so much in 2025, after the close of Season 3’s Thailand-based episodes. Instead, the internet and social media have been alive with chatter over the announcement by Canadian Chilean composer Cristóbal Tapia de Veer that he was quitting the mega-hit franchise to the shock and disappointment of many of the show’s fans.

    Tapia de Veer revealed his intention in an interview with the New York Times published April 2, just four days before the season’s finale, which aired to a series-record viewership. His departure announcement, twinned with criticism of White Lotus writer, creator and showrunner Mike White, has highlighted issues with creative tensions behind such collaborative productions.

    ‘The White Lotus’ Season 3 opening theme song.

    Acclaimed music

    The Québec-trained composer’s 2022 and 2023 music-related White Lotus Emmy awards recognize his aural contributions to the highly awarded hit series. The music’s idiosyncratic mixture of a recognizable theme, bizarre vocalizations and site-based instrumentation has received a lot of popular attention and acclaim.



    Read more:
    HBO’s ‘The White Lotus’: Eerie music heightens drama of rich people’s bad behaviour and emotional dysfunction

    In contrast, some members of the public reacted with hostility toward this season’s theme music. This was partly because it did not use the identifiable thematic material that bound together the first seasons: a four-note theme that has been transliterated as “ooh-loo-loo-loos” and was the basis for the title theme music in the first two seasons.

    The Season 3 theme nevertheless sounds familiar due to Tapia de Veer’s ongoing quirky use of the voice. Novel ways of using it have been the foundations of all the Lotus themes, and in Season 3, it imitated monkey sounds.

    As White said in a statement about the show: “There’s this kind of conflict between wanting to be this spiritual creature that has an idealism and working towards something that’s some semblance of goodness, and then there’s this antic monkey side that keeps putting you in situations that are compromised.”

    ‘Ooh-loo-loos’ and creative differences

    Still, Tapia de Veer said he knew his novel Season 3 approach was a “kind of a risk,” to the extent that he produced an extended version with the traditional “ooh-loo-loo-loos” for insertion later in the show, but White rejected the idea.

    According to the composer, White wanted “more of a ‘chill, sexy vibe’” compared to Tapia de Veer’s more experimental tracks. On the Howard Stern Show, when asked what happened, White had a different perspective, saying: “I honestly don’t know what happened. Reading the interviews … I just don’t think he respected me.”

    The director said he didn’t think they had fought, and expressed dismay that Tapia de Veer brought criticisms and perceived differences to the media.

    To this, Tapia de Veer told the BBC he went public because White hadn’t handled the news “in a normal business manner,” and he said White’s comments on the Stern show demonstrated the director doesn’t fully appreciate the importance of the music on the show.

    On his YouTube channel, Tapia de Veer has uploaded another variant of the theme (“Enlightenment”) under the track title “Full Moon Party,” as well as a 45-minute loop of the 11-note theme.

    What unites the Season 3 tracks is the leaping, non-melodic theme, repeated over and over in changing synthesizer settings. The composer has said no soundtrack album for Season 3 will be forthcoming.



    Read more:
    HBO’s ‘The White Lotus’: Eerie music heightens drama of rich people’s bad behaviour and emotional dysfunction

    Scores gives unity through themes

    The positions of White and Tapia de Veer equally suggest a lack of effective communication, and as named or all but named by both parties, a lack of respect. Both are crucial elements behind the interpersonal relationships required in audiovisual production.

    In the traditional collaboration, the composer falls under the leadership of the director or showrunner, not least because the music is the final audiovisual element added to the mix.

    ‘The White Lotus’ music making, video from Cristóbal Tapia de Veer.

    By the time the film text reaches the composer, the visual track and dialogue have been locked — shooting is completed — yet it lacks the decisive contribution the score makes in defining characters, establishing moods and atmospheres, and giving unity to the whole through recurring themes.

    The composer may work at their own keyboard or digital audio workstation, yet customarily in collaboration with the project’s other creative forces, especially the director.

    Notorious score differences

    Differences between film directors or television producers and composers are not new, the most notorious being Stanley Kubrick’s rejection of Alex North’s score for 2001: A Space Odyssey. This was in favour of the music Kubrick had chosen to temporarily accompany the visual track.

    In another well-known instance, Alfred Hitchcock — under pressure from executives at Universal — replaced the Torn Curtain score (1966) by long-term collaborator Bernard Herrmann with more contemporary-sounding music by John Addison, which ended the decade-long association of composer and director.

    More recently, Gabriel Yared’s score for Troy (2004), directed by Wolfgang Petersen, was replaced with one by James Horner, because test audiences disapproved of Yared’s music.

    Composer withdrawls rare

    With The White Lotus, however, we have a composer walking away from a job in a very public way. A composer’s resignation is not without precedent, yet it remains considerably rarer than their firing. Major film scorer Dmitri Tiomkin withdrew from two early 1960s projects directed by Robert Aldrich, but because of other commitments rather than any disagreement.

    In contrast, Leonard Bernstein did threaten to walk away from West Side Story in 1949 over creative tensions with writer Arthur Laurents — still, this was communicated privately.

    Canadian composer Howard Shore withdrew from Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005), but in this case, Shore said the parting was amicable and related to “differing creative aspirations.”

    Future seasons?

    The drama around White Lotus music is unique because both director and composer have talked with the press.

    If we look beyond the specifics of the music, however, we realize that this is not just about a (new) theme song and its use (or non-use) in the series. Rather, the “differences” cut to the heart of the often fraught working relationship between highly talented creators who strive to realize their visions.

    What does this mean for the music for Season 4 of The White Lotus? White has not suggested a successor, so commentators have fixated on the disagreements over Season 3 rather than speculating about a future sound. We will have to wait and listen.

    James Deaville 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. ‘White Lotus’ music: When talented creators strive to realize their visions, differences and chattering can erupt – https://theconversation.com/white-lotus-music-when-talented-creators-strive-to-realize-their-visions-differences-and-chattering-can-erupt-254032

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Trump is prompting China to change its relationship with the world

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ming Gao, Research Scholar of East Asia Studies, Lund University

    China has spent much of the past two months shoring up friendships both near and far. Two rounds of ministerial meetings with regional rivals Japan and South Korea took place in Tokyo and Seoul at the end of March.

    And earlier in April the red carpet was rolled out for the Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, for his second visit to Beijing in less than seven months. This came shortly before the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, embarked on his first overseas trip of 2025 – a charm offensive to Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia.

    Central to these diplomatic moves is Donald Trump, whose return to the White House has clearly unsettled the boundaries between friend and foe.

    China, Japan and South Korea have historically approached one another with caution. This is a legacy of imperial aggression, unresolved territorial disputes and diverging security alignments with the US.

    But the unpredictability of the Trump administration, which has most recently been demonstrated by the imposition of sweeping trade tariffs, seems to be bringing the three countries closer together.

    At the ministerial meeting in Tokyo in March, their respective governments agreed to extend the tenure of the secretary-general and deputy secretaries of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat from two years to three. This still relatively unknown international organisation was established in 2011 in an effort to promote cooperation between the three countries.

    The decision, while seemingly a minor administrative adjustment, symbolises a growing mutual trust between these nations. China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, has explicitly acknowledged that the extension represents a full endorsement of the organisation’s role. And China has now called on Japan for a coordinated response to US tariffs.

    This renewed momentum in regional cooperation set the stage for Xi’s broader diplomatic offensive through south-east Asia, where China sought to reinforce strategic ties and assert its leadership.

    China rolled out an elaborate diplomatic programme for Xi’s stop in Vietnam. It aimed to reaffirm ideological ties of “comrades and brothers” and counter Hanoi’s recent deepening relations with Washington.

    Following talks with Xi, the general secretary of the Communist party of Vietnam, To Lam, said that his country has always regarded developing relations with China as “a strategic choice and top priority”.

    Malaysia, on the other hand, is one of the earliest supporters of Xi’s signature belt and road initiative. It officially joined the Brics group of emerging economies as a “partner country” in 2025 and currently holds the rotating chairmanship of the Asean group of south-east Asian states. This gives Malaysia a central role in coordinating China’s relations with the bloc.

    During Xi’s visit, the Malaysian prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, made the alignment between the two countries clear. He stated that Malaysia “stands with China” in the face of US threats. Malaysia is one of China’s main trading partners.

    Cambodia is also considered one Beijing’s most loyal partners in south-east Asia. In May 2024, it even named a road in the capital, Phnom Penh, “Xi Jinping Avenue” to thank China for its contribution to Cambodia’s development.

    The authorities pulled out all the stops for Xi’s latest visit. Cambodia’s king, Norodom Sihamoni, personally greeted Xi at the airport in an unprecedented break from protocol. And the two countries elevated their ties to an “all-weather” partnership, a label signalling that their relationship is resilient to external shifts.

    Relations with Europe

    Sánchez’s April visit to Beijing, meanwhile, marked an important point in relations between China and the EU. Following the ramping up of US tariffs, Xi called for the EU and China to “jointly resist unilateral bullying”. This appears to have resonated in Madrid.

    The Spanish delegation carried a message that Washington’s tariff hikes were “neither fair nor just” and had harmed the EU economy. It also said that Europe must “strengthen unity and coordination to safeguard its own interests”.

    This message appears to be filtering through wider European circles, with some leaders signalling their interest in stabilising ties with Beijing. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, for example, has engaged in “constructive” discussions with Chinese premier Li Qiang to address potential trade disruptions from US tariffs.

    Yet the EU faces an obvious dilemma: whether to engage China as an alternative economic partner or push back against a likely surge in redirected Chinese exports that would threaten European industries and deepen existing political tensions.

    Spain, for its part, has its own strategic calculations. Sánchez’s return to China highlights Madrid’s interest in positioning itself as the European leader in renewable energy, with Chinese investment expected to play a central role in this transition.

    This helps explain why, when asked about the EU’s tariff policy on China during a press briefing in September 2024, Sánchez remarked that “Europe needs to reconsider this decision”. Spain ultimately chose to abstain in the EU’s vote on imposing tariffs on the Chinese EV industry.

    China’s message to the world is clear. It is a stable partner and a defender of free trade. Whether China can persuade the world to trust its leadership amid deepening geopolitical uncertainty remains an open question.

    Ming Gao receives funding from the Swedish Research Council. This research was produced with support from the Swedish Research Council grant “Moved Apart” (nr. 2022-01864). Ming Gao is a member of Lund University Profile Area: Human Rights.

    – ref. How Trump is prompting China to change its relationship with the world – https://theconversation.com/how-trump-is-prompting-china-to-change-its-relationship-with-the-world-253567

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The ‘cortisol belly’ myth: when diet culture is rebranded as ‘wellness’

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nadia Maalin, Lecturer in Psychology, Birmingham City University

    Prostock-studio/Shutterstock

    The latest viral wellness trends – “cortisol belly” and “cortisol face” – promise a calmer, leaner, more radiant you … if you can just lower your stress hormones. With attention-grabbing claims like “You don’t have a belly fat problem. You have a cortisol problem,” creators promote 30-day transformations that supposedly shrink waistlines and slim faces by targeting cortisol.

    These posts often feature hashtags like #cortisolreset, #hormonehealth, and #nervoussystemregulation, along with before-and-after photos claiming reduced bloating, flatter stomachs, and tighter jawlines. The secret? They suggest techniques like cold plunges, cutting caffeine, or taking trendy supplements. However, the truth is that cortisol can’t cause such dramatic physical changes that quickly. The real “secret” is likely a mix of marketing and exaggerated claims.

    Cortisol – often called the “stress hormone” – is produced by the adrenal glands in response to stress. This can include everything from daily frustrations (like traffic jams or looming deadlines) to major life changes (like illness or divorce), or persistent stressors such as financial strain.

    Cortisol plays a vital role in our fight-or-flight response – an evolutionary function designed to help us respond to threats. It mobilises energy, regulates blood pressure and blood sugar, reduces inflammation and helps control our sleep-wake cycle. Cortisol naturally peaks in the morning to help us wake up, then decreases throughout the day.

    While short bursts of cortisol are helpful, chronic (long-term or frequent recurring) stress can keep levels elevated over time – and that’s when it can start to cause health problems.

    Sustained cortisol elevation can affect appetite, sleep, cravings (especially for high-calorie comfort foods) and how fat is stored in the body. These factors can contribute to weight gain, particularly around the abdomen.

    Abdominal fat includes both subcutaneous fat (just beneath the skin) and visceral fat, which surrounds internal organs. While both may increase under chronic stress, visceral fat is more strongly linked to health risks such as cardiovascular disease and insulin resistance.

    Yes, reducing stress is good for your health – both mentally and physically. But framing stress management as a path to visible cosmetic changes – flatter stomachs, sharper cheekbones – reduces a complex health process to an aesthetic issue.

    And that’s exactly what many of these viral trends are doing.

    Old ideas in new packaging

    The appearance-related concerns supposedly “solved” by cortisol regulation – puffiness, belly fat, bloating – closely align with western beauty ideals: thin, toned bodies with flat stomachs and sculpted faces. These ideals are especially gendered, targeting women with the ever elusive hourglass figure: slim waist, fuller breasts and hips.

    Internalising these ideals has been consistently linked to body dissatisfaction, disordered eating and poorer psychological wellbeing.

    Influencers and wellness brands often co-opt the language of health to sell what are essentially beauty ideals – repackaged as “empowerment” and “self-care”. In this way, wellness culture subtly continues the legacy of diet culture, just with a more palatable aesthetic. Today’s message? Don’t count calories – regulate your hormones.

    Many of the quick-fix solutions being promoted – from adaptogenic teas (teas containing herbs, roots and other plant substances believed to help the body adapt to stress and restore balance) and cold plunges to “no-coffee-before-breakfast” rules – are based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence. While these practices may help reduce stress for some people, their ability to visibly reshape your body in 30 days is unlikely.

    Claims that you can “spot-reduce” fat or lose fat in targeted areas (like the belly or face) are not supported by scientific consensus. That said, there are evidence-based ways to lower cortisol and support mental and physical wellbeing – such as mindfulness and meditation or emotion regulation strategies. These practices activate the parasympathetic nervous system (the “rest and digest” state), which slows the heart rate, reduces blood pressure and decreases cortisol. They can also help manage anxiety, sleep and inflammation.

    But again, these are not weight-loss hacks – and definitely not quick fixes for belly fat.



    Read more:
    No, you can’t blame all your health issues on ‘high cortisol’. Here’s how the hormone works

    The idea that stress alone can be responsible for face puffiness or belly fat oversimplifies complex physiological processes. Many factors, not just cortisol, influence how and where we store fat, including sex, genetics, hormones – such as insulin and oestrogen – diet and exercise, age, and individual differences in physiology.

    Managing stress is important. It supports immune function, sleep, mental clarity, and emotional regulation. But when stress regulation is marketed as a tool to transform your appearance, it risks reinforcing the same body ideals that diet culture thrives on – just under a shinier, more “mindful” label.

    Instead of focusing on what cortisol does to your waistline, we should be talking about what chronic stress does to your health, relationships and wellbeing. Instead of striving for a flatter stomach through wellness hacks, we might aim for a healthier, more balanced life – regardless of what we look like.

    Nadia Maalin 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 ‘cortisol belly’ myth: when diet culture is rebranded as ‘wellness’ – https://theconversation.com/the-cortisol-belly-myth-when-diet-culture-is-rebranded-as-wellness-254362

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –