NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-Evening Report: Having dense breasts is linked to cancer. But advice about breast density can depend on where you live

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Stone, Principal Research Fellow, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia

    Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

    Having dense breasts is a clear risk factor for breast cancer. It can also make cancers hard to spot on mammograms.

    Yet you might not be aware you have dense breasts, even after mammographic screening.

    In Australia, advice for women with dense breasts and their health-care professionals can be inconsistent and confusing.

    This is because there’s not currently consensus on whether women who have dense breasts, but no symptoms, benefit from further imaging such as ultrasounds. Concerns include potential cost of these tests and the risk they can produce false positives.

    What is breast density?

    Breasts are made up of fatty tissue and fibroglandular tissue (including glands that make milk, held together by fibrous tissue).

    On a mammogram – an x-ray of the breast – fibroglandular tissue appears white and fatty tissue appears dark. The white areas are referred to as breast density.

    Fibroglandular tissue shows up white on a mammogram.
    Nata Sokhrannova/Shutterstock

    A higher proportion of fibroglandular tissue means your breasts are dense.

    There are four categories to classify breast density:

    • A: almost entirely fatty
    • B: scattered areas of fibroglandular density
    • C: heterogeneously or consistently dense
    • D: extremely dense.

    Breast density is very common. Around 40% of women aged 40–74 are estimated to have “dense breasts”, meaning they fall in category C or D.

    What’s the link to cancer?

    Breast density is associated with the risk of breast cancer in two ways.

    First, breast density usually decreases with age. But if a woman has high breast density for her age, it increases her likelihood of breast cancer.

    One study looked at the risk of breast cancer over the age of 50. It found there was a 6.2% risk for the one-third of women with the lowest density. For the 5% with the highest density, the risk was 14.7%.

    Second, breast density “masks” cancers if they develop. Both cancers and breast density appear white on a mammogram, making cancers very hard to see.

    Breast cancer screening saves lives through early detection and improved treatment options. But we don’t yet know if telling women about their breast density leads to earlier cancer detection, or lives saved.

    In Australia, screening mammography is free for all women* aged 40 and older. This is run through BreastScreen Australia, a joint national, state and territory initiative. Those aged 50-74 are invited to have a mammogram, but it’s available for free without a referral from age 40.

    However, the messages Australian women currently receive about breast density – and whether it’s recorded – depends on where they live.

    What does the advice say?

    In 2023, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists updated its position statement to recommend breast density is recorded during screening and diagnostic tests in Australia and New Zealand.

    Meanwhile BreastScreen Australia says it “should not routinely record breast density or provide supplemental testing for women with dense breasts”. However this position statement is from 2020 and is currently under review.

    Some state and territory BreastScreen programs, including in Western Australia, South Australia and soon Victoria, notify women if they have dense breasts. Victoria is currently at an early stage of its roll-out.

    While the messaging regarding breast density differs by state, none currently recommend further imaging for women with dense breasts without speaking to a doctor about individual risk.

    What are the issues?

    Providing recommendations for women with dense breasts is difficult.

    The European Society of Breast Imaging recommends women with extremely dense breasts aged 50–70 receive an MRI every two to four years, in addition to screening mammography. This is based on a large randomised controlled trial from the Netherlands.

    But the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists describes this recommendation as “aspirational”, acknowledging cost, staffing and accessibility as challenges.

    That is, it is not feasible to provide a supplemental MRI for everyone in the screening population in category D with extremely dense breasts (around 10%).

    Further, there is no consensus on appropriate screening recommendations for women in the category C (heterogeneous density).

    We need a national approach to breast density reporting in Australia and to do better at identifying who is most likely to benefit from further testing.

    BreastScreen Australia is currently undergoing a review of its policy and funding.

    One of its goals is to enable a nationally consistent approach to breast screening practices. Hopefully breast density reporting, including funding to support national implementation, will be a priority.

    *This includes those recorded female at birth and who are gender diverse.

    Jennifer Stone receives funding from Cancer Council Western Australia and the NHMRC. She is affiliated with the University of Western Australia and the University of Melbourne. She is Co-chair of the Australian Breast Density Consumer Advisory Council and member of the InforMD Alliance (www.informd.org.au).

    – ref. Having dense breasts is linked to cancer. But advice about breast density can depend on where you live – https://theconversation.com/having-dense-breasts-is-linked-to-cancer-but-advice-about-breast-density-can-depend-on-where-you-live-249863

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: NACC belatedly to investigate whether six Robodebt referrals engaged in ‘corrupt conduct’

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

    The National Anti-Corruption Commission will finally investigate whether six people referred to it by the royal commission into Robodebt engaged in corrupt conduct.

    This follows an independent reconsideration by former High Court judge Geoffrey Nettle, who examined the NACC”s original decision not to pursue the referrals.

    That decision was highly controversial, bringing a plethora of complaints, and sharp criticism of NACC chief Paul Brereton.

    The NACC’s inspector, Gail Furness, found Brereton had not adequately excused himself when the matter was considered. Brereton had delegated the decision-making because he knew one of the people referred professionally, but the inspector found he was still involved in the process.

    In its Tuesday statement the NACC said:“The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether or not any of the 6 referred persons engaged in corrupt conduct”.

    The names of those referred to the NACC – contained in a sealed section of the royal commission report – were not made public. The sealed section has not been released.

    The NACC statement said: “Consistent with its usual practice, the Commission does not publish reasons for commencing an investigation, as doing so may prejudice the investigations, disclose information which the Commission is required by law to keep confidential, compromise investigative pathways and/or unfairly impact reputations and rights of individuals to impartial adjudication.”

    The NACC stressed its arrangements would ensure the investigation was “impartial and fair”. Brereton and those deputy commissioners involved in the original decision not to investigate the referrals won’t be part of the investigation.

    Robodebt used a flawed system of income averaging to determine debts. The scheme, later found to be illegal, raised $1.76 billion from hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients. But many of the debts were wrong, and eventually the money had to be repaid.

    In its findings, the royal commission targeted multiple public officials including ministers who had overseen the scheme (one of them Scott Morrison who as social services minister had been an initiator of it) and public servants.

    A number of the bureaucrats who’d been involved with the scheme, including two who had been departmental heads, were later found to have breached the public service code of conduct.

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

    – ref. NACC belatedly to investigate whether six Robodebt referrals engaged in ‘corrupt conduct’ – https://theconversation.com/nacc-belatedly-to-investigate-whether-six-robodebt-referrals-engaged-in-corrupt-conduct-250145

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The Reserve Bank has cut rates for the first time in four years. But it is cautious about future cuts

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

    The Reserve Bank cut official interest rates on Tuesday, the first decrease in four years, saying inflationary pressures are easing “a little more quickly than expected”.

    However, the central bank said the outlook for economic activity and inflation remains uncertain, with a risk that household spending may be slower than expected.

    The reduction in the cash rate target will come as a relief to the one-third of households with a mortgage. It will help to ease the cost of living crisis for them.

    The cut from a 13-year high of 4.35% to 4.1% had been widely expected by economists and financial markets.

    The interest rate cut may help tip the scales for the government to call an early election. But recent opinion polls suggest the government still has work to do to put itself in a winning position.

    Announcing its decision, the Reserve Bank said it had “more confidence that inflation is moving sustainably towards the midpoint of the 2-3% target”.

    All four of the major banks swiftly passed on the cut in official rates to mortgage-holders. The average new housing loan is $666,000. Reducing the interest rate on this by 0.25% will mean $110 less a month in repayments (assuming a standard 30-year loan).

    It is the first change in the cash rate since November 2023 and marks the first small reversal of 13 rate increases. The central bank had hiked interest rates quickly from the near-zero emergency level during the COVID epidemic and lockdowns.

    Why did the Reserve Bank cut now?

    The interest rate cut comes after headline inflation eased, to 2.4% during 2024, within the Bank’s 2-3% inflation target range.

    However, the Bank’s preferred measure of underlying inflation, the “trimmed mean”, which excludes temporary factors such as the government’s electricity rebates, rose by 3.2% during 2024. This is just above the target range but a little less than the 3.4% the Bank had been forecasting.

    “We cannot declare victory on inflation just yet,” Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock told a press conference after the decision. “It’s not good enough for it to be back in the target range temporarily, the board needs to be confident it’s returning to the target range sustainably.”



    Read more:
    Lower inflation in the December quarter boosts chances of an interest rate cut

    The RBA and the election

    In its first meeting for the year, the Reserve Bank board rejected the notion that they should hold off changing rates because an election is approaching.

    While cutting interest rates will suit one side of politics, not cutting would have benefited the other. The impartial approach is to take the same decision as if no election were looming.

    As then RBA governor Glenn Stevens said in 2007 after raising rates during an election campaign:

    I do not think we ever could accept the idea that in an election year — which, after all, is one year out of three — you cannot change interest rates.

    How does the Reserve Bank compare with other central banks?

    Some central banks in comparable economies had already started lowering interest rates and have cut them by more than the RBA. But that is because most had raised interest rates by more.

    The Reserve Bank adopted a strategy of being more patient in returning inflation to its target, so as to limit the increase in unemployment.

    The strategy has worked. Unemployment in Australia peaked at 4.2% and is now 4.0%. By contrast, in New Zealand it is over 5% and in the euro area and Canada it is over 6%.

    The Reserve Bank hasn’t received the credit it deserves for this strong performance.

    Where to from here?

    This is the last meeting of the current Reserve Bank board. It is being replaced by a new monetary policy committee, and a separate governance board as part of an overhaul of the bank. Two new members will replace two members of the current board for its next meeting on April 1.

    The RBA board’s statement said that it “remains cautious on prospects for further policy easing”. This is central bank-speak for not rushing into further interest rate cuts.

    The RBA also noted that “geopolitical and policy uncertainties are pronounced”. This is a reference to the economic fallout from United States President Donald Trump’s policies on trade and slashing jobs.

    His proposed tariffs and deportations will increase inflation in the US and make US interest rates higher than they otherwise would be.



    Read more:
    What would a second Trump presidency mean for the global economy?

    But this does not mean interest rates need to be higher here. Indeed, a trade war would weaken the global economy, which could lead to less inflation in Australia.

    The Reserve Bank also released its updated forecasts. These show the underlying inflation rate dropping to 2.7% by June and then staying around there through 2026 and 2027.

    Unemployment is low at 4%, and below what the Bank has previously regarded as “full employment”. But it is not leading to any surge in wage growth.

    Indeed, the Bank commented that wages growth has been a little lower than it had forecast. Inflationary expectations are also well contained.

    This offers hope there may be at least one further interest rate cut later this year (and the Reserve Bank’s forecasts assume this). But borrowers should not get their hopes up that interest rates will revisit the COVID-era lows. That is very unlikely.

    John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist at the Reserve Bank.

    – ref. The Reserve Bank has cut rates for the first time in four years. But it is cautious about future cuts – https://theconversation.com/the-reserve-bank-has-cut-rates-for-the-first-time-in-four-years-but-it-is-cautious-about-future-cuts-249704

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from the Hill: will Albanese opt for an April election now a rate cut has him breathing more easily?

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

    The Reserve Bank has delivered the expected modest rate cut of a quarter of a percentage point, and we’re set for the predictable frenzy of speculation about an April election.

    The cut is unlikely to be a major vote changer, after 13 increases. But it was absolutely vital to the government. Labor would have suffered a big knock if Michele Bullock and her board had held out.

    The cut underpins the narrative of things improving, and may put voters in a better mood. At least that’s the government’s thinking.

    But the bank is highly circumspect in its tone. It warned in its statement:

    The forecasts published today suggest that, if monetary policy is eased too much too soon, disinflation could stall, and inflation would settle above the midpoint of the target range. In removing a little of the policy restrictiveness in its decision today, the Board acknowledges that progress has been made but is cautious about the outlook.

    Speculation about the election date is a frustrating exercise, given only Anthony Albanese – and perhaps a few closest to him – knows his thinking, which could still be, as he suggested recently, “fluid”. In recent days the PM has played the tease. Periodically he talks about the intense work on budget, set for March 25; if that went ahead, it would mean a May election. But last week, he was also talking about parliament having seen its last day, which pointed to April.

    It is hard to see the logic of Albanese launching a campaign before the March 8 Western Australian election, given that would be confusing for both state and federal campaigns and put maximum pressure on Labor’s WA volunteers. If Albanese opts for April 12, he would have to call it immediately after the WA poll.

    Many in the business world would like the election done and dusted ASAP, because the pre-election period means a hiatus of sorts.

    The opinion polls can be read various ways, but as things stand, they point to a minority government.

    This is already putting pressure on crossbenchers, notably the teals, to indicate what factors they’d take into account in deciding who they’d support. The Coalition, if it reached about 72 seats (76 is a majority), would be eyeing off crossbenchers Bob Katter, Rebekha Sharkie, Allegra Spender and Dai Le as potentials to guarantee them confidence and supply. Of course that would assume they all were re-elected.

    But this is putting several carts before the horse. Much will happen in the next few weeks, whether the election is April or May. Current polls that make predictions down to individual seats should be treated with much caution.

    While the polls are presently depressing for Labor, this week’s Newspoll had a finding on inflation that might cheer treasurer Jim Chalmers. It found that less than a quarter of people believe inflation would have been lower under a Coalition government. In other words, while high prices are making voters sour, that is not necessarily directly translating into blame for Labor.

    When the campaign proper is underway, the smallest things can blow up in leaders’ faces.

    Albanese failed to remember key numbers in 2022. He had enough fat so his generally lackluster performance didn’t matter in the end. Dutton is yet to be campaign-tested. Rather disconcertingly for his handlers, in his Sky interview last Sunday he forgot deputy prime minister Richard Marles had just been in Washington.

    Meanwhile Dutton is hard at work humanising his image in a series of interviews, and the obligatory 60 Minutes family get together with Karl Stefanovic (who did the Meet the Morrisons – the Duttons-at-home came without an musical performance).

    Albanese worked hard at this before the last election, repeating over and over his story of being brought up in council housing, son of a single mother.

    Dutton’s more complicated back story involves a stint as a youngster in a butcher’s shop, buying a house at 19, an early divorce, and a failed relationship that produced a baby who became his first child in his second marriage. And of course his career as a policeman.

    One can imagine that some of these memories are painful to have to canvas in public, but the campaign’s hard heads say the public want to know all about a potential PM. So it has to be done.

    (One Dutton incident is rarely recalled these days, that involved a temporary loss of political nerve. In 2009, after a redistribution made his seat of Dickson notionally Labor, Dutton sought to jump to the Gold Coast seat of McPherson. But he was beaten in a preselection by Karen Andrews, who is retiring at this election. That forced him back to Dickson, which he then held at the 2010 election.)

    Albanese does not need to canvass his backstory as much these days but he took advantage of Valentine’s day to put out some sentimental social media fodder.

    He and fiancé Jodie (to whom he proposed on Valentine’s day last year) sat, with Toto between them, turning over cards with questions said to be posed by the public. With each question (such as “who said I love you first”) they pointed to each other or themselves.

    Opinion was divided about the video. Toto fell into the sceptics’ camp, jumping to the ground before it was finished.

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

    – ref. View from the Hill: will Albanese opt for an April election now a rate cut has him breathing more easily? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-will-albanese-opt-for-an-april-election-now-a-rate-cut-has-him-breathing-more-easily-250136

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump’s view of the world is becoming clear: America’s interests matter more than any set of rules

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    Last week in Europe, the United States sent some very strong messages it is prepared to upend the established global order.

    US Vice President JD Vance warned a stunned Munich Security Conference that Europe has an “enemy within”, referring to leaders who ignore their citizens’ concerns and values. He also advocated for right-wing political groups to be brought into the mainstream.

    Meanwhile, at a meeting of NATO defence ministers, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth talked about hard power, the warrior ethos and the need for NATO members to spend up to 5% of their GDPs on defence. Most have only just climbed to about 2%, the longstanding NATO guideline.

    In Poland, he reaffirmed the US commitment to the defence of Poland (and NATO) and committed to bolstering the US military presence there. So, despite the mixed messaging, the United States is not leaving Europe anytime soon.

    Meanwhile, President Donald Trump is reportedly demanding a significant levy from Ukraine as payback for US protection and support.

    The combination of remarks has left pundits and policymakers wondering – is the US-led international order, with its multilateral institutions, nearing its end?

    The demise of the rules-based order?

    The United States played a leading role in establishing the rules-based international order from the ashes of the second world war.

    Critics have decried the UN-related institutions that arose at this time. But the rules-based order is perhaps best viewed as Voltaire saw the Holy Roman Empire: “no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire”. Those proclaiming the demise of the rules-based order should be careful what they wish for.

    Such a system of trusted international exchanges barely existed prior to 1945. And while superpowers have carved out many exceptions for themselves, the rules-based order has nonetheless resulted in a time of remarkable stability and prosperity for the world.

    So, why would the United States now appear to be retreating from this arrangement? The declining centrality of US influence goes some way to explain this.

    China’s rise and the rise of Trump

    To place the current events in proper context, we need to go back 25 years, when China joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

    This move was supported by and facilitated by then US President Bill Clinton in a belief that market liberalisation would eventually lead to political liberalisation.

    Since then, China’s growth has skyrocketed thanks to its ready access to global markets. But it’s retained a strong mercantilist approach, counter to the spirit of the WTO. This has generated much resentment and nervousness among Western powers about the changing global power balance.

    Since Xi Jinping’s rise to power in 2012, in particular, China has taken on an adversarial position to the rules-based order, following its own set of rules.

    In effect, the world got neither the political nor the trade liberalisation that it once sought from China. Rather, the rules as they applied in China (and to an extent in Russia) allowed state-owned enterprises to co-opt – if not outright steal – technology shared by their international industry partners.

    Foreign companies were squeezed out of China and had difficulty competing with lower-priced Chinese products at home.

    Trump’s rise is, in part, a reaction to these developments. During his first term from 2017–20, Trump fitfully attempted to take a retaliatory, transactional approach to international relations. Now, as he begins his second term, he has a much more clear-eyed plan of action.

    What Trump expects now

    What became startlingly clear at the Munich Security Conference was Trump’s new vision of transactional alliances with America’s traditional partners.

    In his view, the United States is not so much retreating into isolationism as much as it’s acting as a great power with its own economic interests at heart. Trump is eager for the US to assert its place in a world where spheres of influence matter as much – if not more – than any particular set of rules.

    Evidently, the US is no longer advocating for multilateralism, in which states cooperate as equals. Now, it’s focused more on multi-polarity – a world with several great powers, in which the US puts its own interests first. As Trump frequently reminds us, “America First”.

    According to this world view, allies and adversaries have equally been taking unfair advantage of:

    • America’s famous openness (notably its borders)
    • its liberal trade policies (which, according to Trump, has led to the de-industrialisation of the American heartland).

    Its allies have also taken advantage of the generosity of its security umbrella, leading to their cavalier approach to security.

    The Trump administration’s remedy to all of this involves doling out sanctimonious advice. An example of this: Vance telling European allies they should unwind their relaxed immigration policies.

    JD Vance’s speech to the Munich Security Conference.

    It’s also doling out some tough medicine, apparently trying to provoke a reaction in European capitals so they significantly increase their defence spending. This would enable the US to step back from being Europe’s security guarantor and finally undertake its long-talked-about pivot to Asia and focus on its main adversary: China.

    Russia evidently features as part of this plan. Trump appears intent to try to cleave Russia from its Chinese embrace in order to either isolate or weaken China. A hard-nosed deal with Russia over Ukraine may well be the price he’s willing to pay to make that happen.

    For America’s close security and economic partners, this presents an unprecedented challenge. The old preconceptions and expectations no longer seem to apply. What’s important now is not so much America’s shared values with Europe, it’s their overlapping interests.

    For America’s allies, as well as its adversaries, this is going to require some hard thinking and new strategies, both economically and militarily.

    John Blaxland 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. Trump’s view of the world is becoming clear: America’s interests matter more than any set of rules – https://theconversation.com/trumps-view-of-the-world-is-becoming-clear-americas-interests-matter-more-than-any-set-of-rules-250144

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What is divestiture and how would it stop insurance companies ‘ripping off’ customers?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allan Fels, Professor Allan Fels, Professor of Law, Economics and Business at the University of Melbourne and Monash University., The University of Melbourne

    Australia is creeping towards adding a divestiture power to its Competition and Consumer Act.

    Under such a law, the courts, on the recommendation of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, could break a firm into parts.

    Divestiture is currently used in Australia when the competition and consumer commission considers proposed mergers. Often it will only approve a merger when certain parts of the business are broken up to prevent monopolies.

    It has also been used to deal with abuse of market power by electricity providers.

    Under the proposed change, a company with substantial market power which breaches the Consumer and Competition Act may be forced to divest assets to restore balance and ensure the market is competitive. This would reduce the possibility of consumers being over-charged.

    The Coalition has already proposed breaking up the major supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths which have been long-accused of price gouging customers.

    On Sunday, Coalition leader Peter Dutton signalled he was likely to introduce divestiture if elected to stop insurers from “ripping off” customers by charging exorbitant premiums or refusing to pay claims.

    Premiums have soared by 16.4% in the last year as Australia has been hit by major floods and bushfires. Climate Valuation analysts last month warned one in ten properties could be uninsurable by 2035.

    Repeating his position on Monday, Dutton said:

    If we have a situation where people are being priced out of insurance or they’re deemed an uninsurable risk when they shouldn’t be, that is a failure of the market and we’ll respond accordingly to that.

    He said insurance companies had to be responsible corporate citizens and work with their customers.

    We’re not going to have a situation where people can’t afford insurance or they’re being priced out of products.

    Previously the Morrison government enacted laws which enabled a breakup of energy companies in certain circumstances.

    Labor has not supported a divestiture power. One reason is the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association has opposed such measures.

    The case for divestiture

    In principle there is a strong case for a divestiture law.

    Monopolies and market power stem from an industry being highly concentrated. Often the only way to prevent them from misusing their monopoly is to break them up. The solution could be left to the market or to price regulation or other remedies but these do not address the source of the problem.

    A divestiture power has long existed in the United States. It was used to break up oil, cigarettes, and chemicals in the early days of antitrust law. In the mid-80s it was successfully used to break up the AT&T telephone monopoly. AT&T controlled both long distance and local calls before it was broken up.

    But divestiture is only occasionally used and only when stringent criteria are satisfied.

    Some 20 years ago the US Department of Justice proposed a breakup of Microsoft – the case was never finalised because of procedural problems. However, the Federal Court laid out many prerequisites before this drastic remedy could occur.

    The power has been used in a number of other OECD countries including the United Kingdom.

    When divesting is necessary

    There has been heavy use in Australia of divestiture powers to break up gas and electricity monopolies in the last 30 years

    And there is a strong case for making it a general remedy available for all industries, even though its use would be infrequent.

    Importantly, the availability of this sanction would provide an incentive for firms to comply with abuse of market power provisions of the competition law. These provisions are intended to stop powerful businesses from deterring competition by making it difficult for new entrants to join the market.

    The sanctions for this part of the law currently are very weak. Fines are rarely imposed and if they are, they are small and seen as a cost of doing business to be weighed up against the benefits of anti-competitive behaviour.

    Another reason is that cases take many years. For example, the ACCC case v Safeway 19 years ago took seven years before a court resolution.

    A divestiture power would make firms far more careful before breaching the law.

    Too ‘Russian’?

    Occasionally people question the desirability of this power on the grounds it is the sort of thing you would only see in a country like Russia.

    In an ABC interview last February, Prime Minister Albanese said:

    We have a private sector economy in Australia and not a command and control economy […]We’re not the old Soviet Union. What we have the power to do is to encourage competition and encouraging new entrants.

    However, most observers agree one of the big failures of the Soviet economy has been failure to divest monopolies in energy, transport and other parts of the economy.

    The Coalition’s adoption of a divestiture remedy in three industries is welcome. We need at some point to move to a divestiture power that is available for the whole economy.

    Allan Fels is a former chair of the ACCC.

    – ref. What is divestiture and how would it stop insurance companies ‘ripping off’ customers? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-divestiture-and-how-would-it-stop-insurance-companies-ripping-off-customers-250036

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from the Hill: will Albanese opt for an April election now that a rates cut has him breathing more easily?

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

    The Reserve Bank has delivered the expected modest rate cut of a quarter of a percentage point, and we’re set for the predictable frenzy of speculation about an April election.

    The cut is unlikely to be a major vote changer, after 13 increases. But it was absolutely vital to the government. Labor would have suffered a big knock if Michele Bullock and her board had held out.

    The cut underpins the narrative of things improving, and may put voters in a better mood. At least that’s the government’s thinking.

    But the bank is highly circumspect in its tone. It warned in its statement:

    The forecasts published today suggest that, if monetary policy is eased too much too soon, disinflation could stall, and inflation would settle above the midpoint of the target range. In removing a little of the policy restrictiveness in its decision today, the Board acknowledges that progress has been made but is cautious about the outlook.

    Speculation about the election date is a frustrating exercise, given only Anthony Albanese – and perhaps a few closest to him – knows his thinking, which could still be, as he suggested recently, “fluid”. In recent days the PM has played the tease. Periodically he talks about the intense work on budget, set for March 25; if that went ahead, it would mean a May election. But last week, he was also talking about parliament having seen its last day, which pointed to April.

    It is hard to see the logic of Albanese launching a campaign before the March 8 Western Australian election, given that would be confusing for both state and federal campaigns and put maximum pressure on Labor’s WA volunteers. If Albanese opts for April 12, he would have to call it immediately after the WA poll.

    Many in the business world would like the election done and dusted ASAP, because the pre-election period means a hiatus of sorts.

    The opinion polls can be read various ways, but as things stand, they point to a minority government.

    This is already putting pressure on crossbenchers, notably the teals, to indicate what factors they’d take into account in deciding who they’d support. The Coalition, if it reached about 72 seats (76 is a majority), would be eyeing off crossbenchers Bob Katter, Rebekha Sharkie, Allegra Spender and Dai Le as potentials to guarantee them confidence and supply. Of course that would assume they all were re-elected.

    But this is putting several carts before the horse. Much will happen in the next few weeks, whether the election is April or May. Current polls that make predictions down to individual seats should be treated with much caution.

    While the polls are presently depressing for Labor, this week’s Newspoll had a finding on inflation that might cheer treasurer Jim Chalmers. It found that less than a quarter of people believe inflation would have been lower under a Coalition government. In other words, while high prices are making voters sour, that is not necessarily directly translating into blame for Labor.

    When the campaign proper is underway, the smallest things can blow up in leaders’ faces.

    Albanese failed to remember key numbers in 2022. He had enough fat so his generally lackluster performance didn’t matter in the end. Dutton is yet to be campaign-tested. Rather disconcertingly for his handlers, in his Sky interview last Sunday he forgot deputy prime minister Richard Marles had just been in Washington.

    Meanwhile Dutton is hard at work humanising his image in a series of interviews, and the obligatory 60 Minutes family get together with Karl Stefanovic (who did the Meet the Morrisons – the Duttons-at-home came without an musical performance).

    Albanese worked hard at this before the last election, repeating over and over his story of being brought up in council housing, son of a single mother.

    Dutton’s more complicated back story involves a stint as a youngster in a butcher’s shop, buying a house at 19, an early divorce, and a failed relationship that produced a baby who became his first child in his second marriage. And of course his career as a policeman.

    One can imagine that some of these memories are painful to have to canvas in public, but the campaign’s hard heads say the public want to know all about a potential PM. So it has to be done.

    (One Dutton incident is rarely recalled these days, that involved a temporary loss of political nerve. In 2009, after a redistribution made his seat of Dickson notionally Labor, Dutton sought to jump to the Gold Coast seat of McPherson. But he was beaten in a preselection by Karen Andrews, who is retiring at this election. That forced him back to Dickson, which he then held at the 2010 election.)

    Albanese does not need to canvass his backstory as much these days but he took advantage of Valentine’s day to put out some sentimental social media fodder.

    He and fiancé Jodie (to whom he proposed on Valentine’s day last year) sat, with Toto between them, turning over cards. with questions said to be posed by the public. With each question (such as “who said I love you first”) they pointed to each other or themselves.

    Opinion was divided about the video. Toto fell into the sceptics’ camp, jumping to the ground before it was finished.

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

    – ref. View from the Hill: will Albanese opt for an April election now that a rates cut has him breathing more easily? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-will-albanese-opt-for-an-april-election-now-that-a-rates-cut-has-him-breathing-more-easily-250136

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Fitzpatrick, Professor in International History, Flinders University

    (From left to right): Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano before signing the Munich Agreement, which gave the Sudetenland to Germany. German Federal Archives/Wikimedia Commons

    Ukraine has not been invited to a key meeting between American and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia this week to decide what peace in the country might look like.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine will “never accept” any decisions in talks without its participation to end Russia’s three-year war in the country.

    A decision to negotiate the sovereignty of Ukrainians without them – as well as US President Donald Trump’s blatantly extortionate attempt to claim half of Ukraine’s rare mineral wealth as the price for ongoing US support – reveals a lot about how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.

    But this is not the first time large powers have colluded to negotiate new borders or spheres of influence without the input of the people who live there.

    Such high-handed power politics rarely ends well for those affected, as these seven historical examples show.

    1. The Scramble for Africa

    In the winter of 1884–85, German leader Otto von Bismarck invited the powers of Europe to Berlin for a conference to formalise the division of the entire African continent among them. Not a single African was present at the conference that would come to be known as “The Scramble for Africa”.

    Among other things, the conference led to the creation of the Congo Free State under Belgian control, the site of colonial atrocities that killed millions.

    Germany also established the colony of German South West Africa (present-day Namibia), where the first genocide of the 20th century was later perpetrated against its colonised peoples.

    How the boundaries of Africa changed after the Berlin conference.
    Wikimedia Commons/Somebody500

    2. The Tripartite Convention

    It wasn’t just Africa that was divided up this way. In 1899, Germany and the United States held a conference and forced an agreement on the Samoans to split their islands between the two powers.

    This was despite the Samoans expressing a desire for either self-rule or a confederation of Pacific states with Hawai’i.

    As “compensation” for missing out in Samoa, Britain received uncontested primacy over Tonga.

    German Samoa came under the rule of New Zealand after the first world war and remained a territory until 1962. American Samoa (in addition to several other Pacific islands) remain US territories to this day.

    3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement

    As the first world war was well under way, British and French representatives sat down to agree how they’d divide up the Ottoman Empire after it was over. As an enemy power, the Ottomans were not invited to the talks.

    Together, England’s Mark Sykes and France’s François Georges-Picot redrew the Middle East’s borders in line with their nations’ interests.

    The Sykes-Picot Agreement ran counter to commitments made in a series of letters known as the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. In these letters, Britain promised to support Arab independence from Turkish rule.



    Read more:
    What was the Sykes-Picot agreement, and why does it still affect the Middle East today?

    The Sykes-Picot Agreement also ran counter to promises Britain made in the Balfour Declaration to back Zionists who wanted to build a new Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine.

    The agreement became the wellspring of decades of conflict and colonial misrule in the Middle East, the consequences of which continue to be felt today.

    Map showing the areas of control and influence in the Middle East agreed upon between the British and French.
    The National Archives (UK)/Wikimedia Commons

    4. The Munich Agreement

    In September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier met with Italy’s fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, and Germany’s Adolf Hitler to sign what became known as the Munich Agreement.

    The leaders sought to prevent the spread of war throughout Europe after Hitler’s Nazis had fomented an uprising and began attacking the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland. They did this under the pretext of protecting German minorities. No Czechoslovakians were invited to the meeting.

    The meeting is still seen by many as the “Munich Betrayal” – a classic example of a failed appeasement of a belligerent power in the false hope of staving off war.

    5. The Évian Conference

    In 1938, 32 countries met in Évian-les-Bains, France, to decide how to deal with Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany.

    Before the conference started, Britain and the US had agreed not to put pressure on one another to lift the quota of Jews they would accept in either the US or British Palestine.

    While Golda Meir (the future Israeli leader) attended the conference as an observer, neither she nor any other representatives of the Jewish people were permitted to take part in the negotiations.

    The attendees largely failed to come to an agreement on accepting Jewish refugees, with the exception of the Dominican Republic. And most Jews in Germany were unable to leave before Nazism reached its genocidal nadir in the Holocaust.

    6. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

    As Hitler planned his invasion of Eastern Europe, it became clear his major stumbling block was the Soviet Union. His answer was to sign a disingenuous non-aggression treaty with the USSR.

    Joseph Stalin and Joachim von Ribbentrop after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
    German Federal Archives/Wikimedia Commons

    The treaty, named after Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop (the Soviet and German foreign ministers), ensured the Soviet Union would not respond when Hitler invaded Poland. It also carved up Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres. This allowed the Soviets to expand into Romania and the Baltic states, attack Finland and take its own share of Polish territory.

    Unsurprisingly, some in Eastern Europe view the current US-Russia talks over Ukraine’s future as a revival of this kind of secret diplomacy that divided the smaller nations of Europe between large powers in the second world war.

    7. The Yalta Conference

    With the defeat of Nazi Germany imminent, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and US President Franklin D Roosevelt met in 1945 to decide the fate of postwar Europe. This meeting came to be known as the Yalta Conference.

    Alongside the Potsdam Conference several months later, Yalta created the political architecture that would lead to the Cold War division of Europe.

    At Yalta, the “big three” decided on the division of Germany, while Stalin was also offered a sphere of interest in Eastern Europe.

    This took the form of a series of politically controlled buffer states in Eastern Europe, a model some believe Putin is aiming to emulate today in eastern and southeastern Europe.

    Matt Fitzpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the History Council of South Australia.

    – ref. Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-isnt-invited-to-its-own-peace-talks-history-is-full-of-such-examples-and-the-results-are-devastating-250049

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia is deporting 3 non-citizens from the ‘NZYQ’ group to Nauru. What could it do instead?

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

    Australia’s minister for home affairs announced on Sunday that the federal government has struck a deal with Nauru to “resettle” three non-citizens from what’s come to be known as the “NZYQ cohort”.

    The NZYQ cohort is a group of people released from long-term immigration detention after the High Court’s NZYQ 2023 decision.

    The court found their ongoing detention was unconstitutional where there was no reasonable prospect of removing them to another country. This led to the release of over 200 people from detention, the majority of whom had previously had visas cancelled on character grounds or had committed crimes.

    This new deal with Nauru has significant implications.

    What happened on the weekend?

    According to the home affairs minister, three people from the NZYQ group have now been granted 30-year visas by Nauru, and will soon be removed to that country.

    The minister said all three have criminal histories. One has been convicted of murder.

    Nauru may accept more people from the NZYQ cohort, referring to these people as “the first three”. The minister says he expects a legal challenge to their removal.



    Read more:
    High Court reasons on immigration ruling pave way for further legislation

    Why it is this development significant?

    Once a non-citizen has had their visa cancelled on criminal grounds, they are often deported to their country of origin after serving their prison sentence.

    However, the individuals in the NZYQ group cannot be returned to their country of origin. That could be because international law prevents Australia returning them to places where they may face harm (a principle known as “non-refoulement”).

    Or, they may have no recognised nationality and no country to accept them.

    This raises the question of what should be done with them after they complete their prison sentence.

    Up until the decision in NZYQ, people in this situation were simply kept in immigration detention. It was often almost impossible to get another country to accept them.

    The Australian government tried to get many other countries to accept the man at the centre of the NZYQ case. This person, a stateless Rohingnya man given the pseudonym NZYQ, had been convicted of a serious crime.

    The High Court noted no country had a standard practice of resettling people in situations such as this. It noted the immigration department had never successfully transferred such a person to a third country (in other words, to a place that was not Australia, and not their country of origin).

    The Nauru deal announced on the weekend is an important development, in part because it is the first significant use of new migration laws rushed through late last year.

    What do the new migration laws allow?

    These laws aimed to respond to concerns around the NZYQ cohort being released into the community.

    The new laws allow the government to transfer non-citizens to third countries, in this case Nauru, under “third country reception arrangements.”

    The details of these agreements are left entirely to the discretion of government. The laws grant broad powers to remove people and provide payments to those third countries.

    People who may be removed to a third country include those in the NZYQ group who, since the High Court decision, have been living in the community on bridging visas.

    The new laws allow the government to transfer non-citizens to third countries, in this case Nauru.
    Robert Szymanski/Shutterstock

    Why are some concerned?

    A major issue is the uncertainty surrounding the rights and support of individuals sent to Nauru.

    It’s unclear how or whether these people will be able to get housing and access to work, or how they might be treated in a country with high unemployment. Some may have family members in Australia and may be separated indefinitely from them.

    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has raised significant concerns around what it calls “externalisation” of international protection obligations without adequate protection safeguards or standards of treatment.

    Externalisation, it says, can lead to

    indefinite “warehousing” of asylum-seekers in isolated places, exposing them to indirect refoulement and other dangers.

    The UN Human Rights Committee has also said that outsourcing operations to another country did not absolve Australia of accountability and its human rights obligations.

    A possible precedent

    A final concern is the precedent this agreement with Nauru sets for how other countries may treat refugees with criminal convictions.

    Australia’s model of offshore processing has already been used as a reference by other countries, including the UK.

    With the growing international debate about managing refugees with criminal convictions, this arrangement may end up being replicated elsewhere.

    The lack of safeguards for people in third countries, such as Nauru, could mean refugees and asylum seekers are transferred without proper protection, exposing them to further harm.

    How do other countries handle cases like this?

    It is not uncommon for countries to send criminal deportees to their home countries. But in situations where people are stateless or cannot be sent home due to a fear of serious harm, countries either have to allow the person to remain or seek an alternative country to send them to.

    However, it remains very hard for countries to convince other countries to accept people who have criminal convictions.

    Earlier this year, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order to prepare a detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in order to hold up to 30,000 “high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States”.

    Exact details of the arrangement remain unclear and the plan has been criticised by a range of human rights groups and legal organisations.

    What are the alternatives to Australia’s Nauru plan?

    Other countries have established systems for managing non-citizens who are not entitled to protection or whose visas have been revoked due to criminal offences, ensuring they are not detained indefinitely.

    After completing their prison sentences, these individuals are typically released into the community, where domestic law enforcement handles any further offending.

    Neglecting to address offending behaviour or rehabilitation within the Australian system – whether during imprisonment, detention, or in the community – and then deporting individuals to developing countries doesn’t really solve the problem.

    It simply means we are externalising the problem to a poorer country.

    Mary Anne Kenny has received funding from the ARC. She 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 previously was an independent advisor to the governments of Australia and Nauru as part of the Joint Advisory Committee on Nauru between 2012 – 2016.

    Lisa van Toor receives funding from Research Training Plan (RTP) scholarship for her PhD. She is currently a PhD student with the UNSW Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. She previously was a Judge’s Associate in the Supreme Court of Nauru between 2018-2019. Lisa is a member of the Greens WA.

    – ref. Australia is deporting 3 non-citizens from the ‘NZYQ’ group to Nauru. What could it do instead? – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-deporting-3-non-citizens-from-the-nzyq-group-to-nauru-what-could-it-do-instead-250053

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New experiments finally prove a long-forgotten theory about how quantum particles spin

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arjen Vaartjes, PhD Student, Quantum Physics, UNSW Sydney

    Dmitriy Rybin / Shutterstock

    What makes something quantum? This question has kept a small but dedicated fraction of the world’s population – most of them quantum physicists – up at night for decades.

    At very small scales, we know the universe is made up of waves and energy fields ruled by the laws of quantum mechanics, but at the scale of the everyday world around us we mostly see solid objects following the older rules of classical mechanics. When we ask what makes something quantum, we are asking where the line is between these two realms and how it can be drawn.

    In a new study published in Newton, we answer this question in a previously undiscovered way. We show that a single spinning particle can show indubitable evidence of quantum behaviour.

    The discovery of spin

    One hundred years ago, Dutch physicists Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck proposed the idea that most tiny particles never really stand still. Instead, they suggested, electrons – elementary particles that form the outer shell of atoms – behave like minuscule spinning tops.

    The spin can be either clockwise or anticlockwise, or what physicists call “spin up” and “spin down”. This binary nature of spinning electrons means that they can be used as building blocks for quantum computers.

    However, in 1925 Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck’s spinning electron proposal caused an uproar in the physics establishment. At this time, physics was shaped by illustrious names such as Albert Einstein, Max Planck and Paul Ehrenfest, who laid the groundwork for the grand theories of relativity and quantum mechanics that transformed our understanding of the universe.

    After eminent physicist and Nobel laureate Hendrik Lorentz criticised the spin theory, Uhlenbeck got cold feet and wanted to retract the paper. Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit’s mentor Ehrenfest told them to persist, writing: “You are both young enough to be able to afford a stupidity!”

    Old ideas still remain

    This kind of resistance to new ideas is not unusual in physics. As Planck put it, science progresses one funeral at a time.

    Much like the scepticism about the discovery of spinning electrons, today many physicists are educated with a misconception about how spin works. Conventional wisdom, still taught in standard textbooks, tells us that spin is a quantum property that is essential to understanding the behaviour of electrons and nuclei. But at the same time, the textbooks say the rotation of the particle is still somehow perfectly described by classical physics.

    Tsirelson’s forgotten protocol

    A similar consideration applies to another textbook system, the harmonic oscillator (e.g. a pendulum). According to a 1927 theorem by Paul Ehrenfest, the way a quantum pendulum swings is indistinguishable from a swing in the park.

    Strikingly, almost 80 years later the Russian-Israeli physicist Boris Tsirelson had an idea showing that it is possible to discern a quantum pendulum from a swing in the park, provided the quantum system is prepared in a truly quantum state. At the time, Tsirelson’s paper attracted little notice.

    Another 15 years later, the research team of Valerio Scarani in Singapore resurfaced Tsirelson’s paper from the depths of the internet. Scarani’s student Zaw Lin Htoo extended Tsirelson’s idea, proving theoretically that it actually was possible to detect quantumness in the rotation of a spin.

    Bigger particles and Schrödinger’s cat

    Our team at the University of New South Wales decided to take on the challenge and prove the quantumness of a spin in a real experiment. However, we couldn’t do it with a simple spin like an electron. Because an electron is so small, it only has two possible spin states: up and down. Again defying widespread intuition, it turns out that an electron spin can only be prepared in quasi-classical states, which obey the old textbook predictions.

    Instead we used a much larger particle, the nucleus of an antimony atom. The spin of this particle can point in eight different directions, instead of just two.

    We were able to place the atom in a so-called “Schrödinger’s cat” state, in which it is in a superposition of two widely different spin directions at once.

    We then performed the Tsirelson-Scarani protocol, which involves measuring not just the average orientation of the spin, but the positivity of it – a very different kind of measurement to what is done in standard spin resonance setups. This experiment showed unquestionable evidence for the quantumness of the antimony’s spin.

    What’s next?

    Our study is important for discovering fundamental truths about the universe, and for providing clarity on what it means to “be quantum”. However, it may also have real-life applications.

    The states that we demonstrated to be quantum with the Tsirelson-Scarani protocol are exactly the kind of thing that give quantum computation and quantum sensing an advantage over classical counterparts. In the future we will focus making the most of these systems for use in technological applications.

    Arjen Vaartjes receives funding from the Sydney Quantum Academy.

    Andrea Morello receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Defence, and the US Army Research Office.

    – ref. New experiments finally prove a long-forgotten theory about how quantum particles spin – https://theconversation.com/new-experiments-finally-prove-a-long-forgotten-theory-about-how-quantum-particles-spin-250059

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matt Fitzpatrick, Professor in International History, Flinders University

    (From left to right): Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano before signing the Munich Agreement, which gave the Sudetenland to Germany. German Federal Archives/Wikimedia Commons

    Ukraine has not been invited to a key meeting between American and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia this week to decide what peace in the country might look like.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine will “never accept” any decisions in talks without its participation to end Russia’s three-year war in the country.

    A decision to negotiate the sovereignty of Ukrainians without them – as well as US President Donald Trump’s blatantly extortionate attempt to claim half of Ukraine’s rare mineral wealth as the price for ongoing US support – reveals a lot about how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.

    But this is not the first time large powers have colluded to negotiate new borders or spheres of influence without the input of the people who live there.

    Such high-handed power politics rarely ends well for those affected, as these seven historical examples show.

    1. The Scramble for Africa

    In the winter of 1884–85, German leader Otto von Bismarck invited the powers of Europe to Berlin for a conference to formalise the division of the entire African continent among them. Not a single African was present at the conference that would come to be known as “The Scramble for Africa”.

    Among other things, the conference led to the creation of the Congo Free State under Belgian control, the site of colonial atrocities that killed millions.

    Germany also established the colony of German South West Africa (present-day Namibia), where the first genocide of the 20th century was later perpetrated against its colonised peoples.

    How the boundaries of Africa changed after the Berlin conference.
    Wikimedia Commons/Somebody500

    2. The Tripartite Convention

    It wasn’t just Africa that was divided up this way. In 1899, Germany and the United States held a conference and forced an agreement on the Samoans to split their islands between the two powers.

    This was despite the Samoans expressing a desire for either self-rule or a confederation of Pacific states with Hawai’i.

    As “compensation” for missing out in Samoa, Britain received uncontested primacy over Tonga.

    German Samoa came under the rule of New Zealand after the first world war and remained a territory until 1962. American Samoa (in addition to several other Pacific islands) remain US territories to this day.

    3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement

    As the first world war was well under way, British and French representatives sat down to agree how they’d divide up the Ottoman Empire after it was over. As an enemy power, the Ottomans were not invited to the talks.

    Together, England’s Mark Sykes and France’s François Georges-Picot redrew the Middle East’s borders in line with their nations’ interests.

    The Sykes-Picot Agreement ran counter to commitments made in a series of letters known as the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. In these letters, Britain promised to support Arab independence from Turkish rule.



    Read more:
    What was the Sykes-Picot agreement, and why does it still affect the Middle East today?

    The Sykes-Picot Agreement also ran counter to promises Britain made in the Balfour Declaration to back Zionists who wanted to build a new Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine.

    The agreement became the wellspring of decades of conflict and colonial misrule in the Middle East, the consequences of which continue to be felt today.

    Map showing the areas of control and influence in the Middle East agreed upon between the British and French.
    The National Archives (UK)/Wikimedia Commons

    4. The Munich Agreement

    In September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier met with Italy’s fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, and Germany’s Adolf Hitler to sign what became known as the Munich Agreement.

    The leaders sought to prevent the spread of war throughout Europe after Hitler’s Nazis had fomented an uprising and began attacking the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland. They did this under the pretext of protecting German minorities. No Czechoslovakians were invited to the meeting.

    The meeting is still seen by many as the “Munich Betrayal” – a classic example of a failed appeasement of a belligerent power in the false hope of staving off war.

    5. The Évian Conference

    In 1938, 32 countries met in Évian-les-Bains, France, to decide how to deal with Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany.

    Before the conference started, Britain and the US had agreed not to put pressure on one another to lift the quota of Jews they would accept in either the US or British Palestine.

    While Golda Meir (the future Israeli leader) attended the conference as an observer, neither she nor any other representatives of the Jewish people were permitted to take part in the negotiations.

    The attendees largely failed to come to an agreement on accepting Jewish refugees, with the exception of the Dominican Republic. And most Jews in Germany were unable to leave before Nazism reached its genocidal nadir in the Holocaust.

    6. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

    As Hitler planned his invasion of Eastern Europe, it became clear his major stumbling block was the Soviet Union. His answer was to sign a disingenuous non-aggression treaty with the USSR.

    Joseph Stalin and Joachim von Ribbentrop after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
    German Federal Archives/Wikimedia Commons

    The treaty, named after Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop (the Soviet and German foreign ministers), ensured the Soviet Union would not respond when Hitler invaded Poland. It also carved up Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres. This allowed the Soviets to expand into Romania and the Baltic states, attack Finland and take its own share of Polish territory.

    Unsurprisingly, some in Eastern Europe view the current US-Russia talks over Ukraine’s future as a revival of this kind of secret diplomacy that divided the smaller nations of Europe between large powers in the second world war.

    7. The Yalta Conference

    With the defeat of Nazi Germany imminent, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and US President Franklin D Roosevelt met in 1945 to decide the fate of postwar Europe. This meeting came to be known as the Yalta Conference.

    Alongside the Potsdam Conference several months later, Yalta created the political architecture that would lead to the Cold War division of Europe.

    At Yalta, the “big three” decided on the division of Germany, while Stalin was also offered a sphere of interest in Eastern Europe.

    This took the form of a series of politically controlled buffer states in Eastern Europe, a model some believe Putin is aiming to emulate today in eastern and southeastern Europe.

    Matt Fitzpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the History Council of South Australia.

    – ref. Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-isnt-invited-to-its-own-peace-talks-history-is-full-of-such-examples-and-the-results-are-devastating-250049

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australian houses are getting larger. For a more sustainable future, our houses can’t be the space for everything

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bhavna Middha, ARC DECRA Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

    The average Australian household size has decreased from 4.5 people per household in 1911 to 2.5 people in 2024. At the same time, the average house size has increased, from 100 square metres in the 1950s to 236m² in 2020. The average living space in Australian households is now 84m² per person.

    The way we live in our homes – our habits and daily routines – is also growing and changing with our housing, and the way we want to live can shape the size of our homes.

    For a more sustainable future, we need to embrace living in smaller spaces. This means not letting our houses be our primary space for every activity in our lives.

    Our homes and ‘space creep’

    Our houses first became bigger due to space creep, bringing more of the outdoors inside.

    Once, older children were delegated to “sleep outs”, or closed-in verandas, when new siblings arrived. Over time, these draughty and unheated spaces may have been converted into bedrooms, and houses were increasingly built with dedicated rooms for each child.

    Older children were often relegated to sleeping in enclosed verandas, like on this house in Cairns in 1927.
    State Library Queensland

    Our research shows space creep now also occurs even in shrinking, empty nest households. Garages and sheds are increasingly being converted into “man-caves” or rumpus rooms for tinkering, play and privacy.

    Some families we spoke with bought bigger houses because there was a separate “hobby room” for crafts or music, or separate home offices. People now see these spaces as integral to their home life, and buy or build houses with this in mind.

    Space creep is also linked to how we consume. We saw many old fridges and chest freezers in garages, allowing for greater food storage because people were concerned about having enough food in the house, needed to bulk buy items to save money, or because they tried to minimise trips to the store.

    The routines set in these spaces result in us consuming more space. As we, as a society, become used to these spaces, we feel like we should need them.

    COVID changed perceptions of how much space is needed in our homes. People living in apartments now describe them as feeling much smaller than they did before.

    Pets are increasingly viewed as part of the family: almost half of homes have a dog, and one third own a cat. This means either making or buying more space to accommodate pets, as well as more energy consumption.

    Studies have found we spend more time in our houses than in the past, but overall time spent in each space in the house is less. And while the spaciousness of our homes may afford privacy, we lose connection. If every family member is in a different room on their individual screens, we lose some of the benefits of a family room.

    Do we need more apartments?

    After children have left, many people prefer to age in their communities. Without better options of smaller, well-built homes in the same location, older people often hold onto the large family home.

    Planning rules and conventionally designed houses often do not offer the flexibility of subdividing homes that have grown too large. Smaller townhouses in the same area may be two stories with stairs, making them inaccessible for many older people. Older people need to be able to downsize without moving away from their communities, services and local area.

    And yet, it is not as simple or straightforward as everyone living in apartments or units. Some larger houses are still needed to satisfy certain needs, like multi-generational living.

    One in five Victorians want to live in apartments, but only one in ten do.
    Denise Jans/Unsplash

    A recent study found one in five Victorians would prefer to live in an apartment, but only one in ten do.

    In Australia, apartments suitable for families are rare. Students, young couples or young families see apartments as transient living places and not as a forever home, in stark contrast to how families see apartments in many cities in Europe.

    As our lot sizes decrease and our new houses increase in size, garden space is compromised to the detriment of biodiversity, shading from trees and stormwater runoff.

    Low and mid-density living that allows for smaller houses and units with backyards and apartments with generous balconies close to larger shared spaces, like parks and sports grounds, may satisfy the desire for privacy, serenity and improve physical and mental health through contact with nature, while reducing the risk of hotter urban environments.

    Changing priorities

    Transitioning from larger to smaller homes, and from houses to apartments, means shifting from a culture where we have an abundance of private spaces such as pools, home theatres and hobby rooms in our homes to shared social infrastructure.

    We need to see increased investment in social infrastructure – especially in greenfield suburbs with new developments.

    People might chose to have a bigger house so they can have a home gym, instead of a gym membership.
    Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock

    It means investing in walkable community facilities where people can go to pursue their interests and hobbies and connect with others. Instead of a private hobby room, these activities can be brought into a public space. Instead of multiple living areas, families can share one living space or use outside shared spaces such as Men’s Sheds.

    Changes to construction laws may help protect consumers and help householders gain confidence in the monetary value of multi-unit living, by providing solutions for issues in apartments such as cladding, safety and insurance.

    Another important step may be the New South Wales Housing Pattern Book. The book, to be released this year, will contain the winning designs of an international competition for terrace houses and mid-rise apartment buildings that offer compact sized dwellings with flexible room sizes, private and public outdoor spaces and ample natural light. The designs will be able to be licenced for use by developers and home builders, and enjoy faster approval processes.

    The availability of high-quality designs for smaller spaces in connection with attractive neighbourhood places may help Australians reimagine smaller, higher density, good home living.

    Bhavna Middha receives funding from the Australian Research Council for her Discovery Early Career Research Award (2024)

    Nicola Willand receives funding for research from various organisations, including the ARC, the Victorian state government, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, the Future Fuels Collaborative Research Centre and the NHMRC. She is a trustee of the Fuel Poverty Research Network charity and affiliated with the Australian Institute of Architects.

    – ref. Australian houses are getting larger. For a more sustainable future, our houses can’t be the space for everything – https://theconversation.com/australian-houses-are-getting-larger-for-a-more-sustainable-future-our-houses-cant-be-the-space-for-everything-245476

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Fish and chips shouldn’t come with a catch: how Australia can keep illegal seafood off our plates

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leslie Roberson, Postdoctoral research fellow, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland

    If you’ve ever been stopped by quarantine officers at the airport, you might think Australia’s international border is locked down like a fortress. But when it comes to trade in seafood, it’s more like a net full of holes.

    Products sourced from illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing can easily slip through to unsuspecting buyers.

    Seafood is among the world’s most traded agricultural commodities. Yet illegal fishing accounts for an estimated one-fifth of all wild-caught seafood.

    This represents a serious threat to marine ecosystems, food security and even human rights. The phenomenon has been linked to organised crime, modern slavery, and the depletion of vulnerable species such as abalone and hammerhead sharks.

    The blame usually falls on countries where the fishing occurs, or where the boat is registered. But seafood markets, including processors, retailers and consumers, play a major role in driving demand. They could also play a crucial role in combating illegal fishing.

    In our new policy paper, we propose more effective controls on seafood imports.

    What is illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing? (Australian Fisheries Management Authority)

    Australia’s role as a seafood-loving nation

    Australia spends considerable effort managing its own fisheries, ensuring they are legal and sustainable.

    Yet, 60 to 70% of the seafood consumed in Australia is imported.

    These imports come mainly from countries with weaker environmental regulations, more illegal activity, and greater vulnerability to labour abuse and slavery.

    Current policies leave Australia vulnerable to illegally sourced seafood. Key information, such as the fishing location or species name, is often not required under current trade measures. This means seafood products can be imported under vague labels such as “frozen fish”, obscuring their identity and origins.

    Suspect seafood products

    Certain seafood products such as shark fins are more likely to be sourced illegally for a variety of reasons, including high market value. Other riskier wild-caught products imported into Australia include:

    Most of the seafood consumed in Australia comes from overseas.
    Shine Nucha, Shutterstock

    A new border policy could help crack down on fishy imports

    Australia has made international commitments to consume sustainable seafood, in fisheries policy and through subscribing to the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Biodiversity Framework. Meeting these commitments will require being more careful about what we import from other countries. This could take the form of stricter border regulations.

    The Australian government has begun to explore trade measures aimed at denying entry to illegal or untraceable seafood products. A group of organisations was formed two years ago to support this process. While a draft report was released at the end of 2023, the final outcome remains delayed – perhaps until after the next federal election.

    To inform this process, we reviewed the existing seafood import policies and recommend eight key design criteria for improvement.

    Only the United States, the European Union, and Japan have systems in place to verify the legal origin of imported seafood. Since these are some of the world’s largest seafood import markets, their efforts are important. But their schemes all have notable flaws that Australia should avoid replicating.

    These systems are technologically obsolete, lack solid traceability and accounting mechanisms, and rely on trade documents that are often impossible to verify. Most systems are not fully electronic, resulting in shipping containers of seafood arriving with shoeboxes of paper catch certificates.

    There are no mechanisms for cooperation between countries. Crosschecking of the same certificate arriving in both France and Italy, for instance, is not yet possible. This makes it easy to reuse certificates across multiple countries, enabling trade of falsely labelled or illegally caught seafood.

    Unlawful transfer of fish between vessels is an example of illegal fishing activity.
    Richard Whitcombe, Shutterstock

    Australia’s chance to take the lead against fishy imports

    Seafood supply chains are notoriously complex. Without effective certification schemes, keeping seafood sourced from illegal fishing operations out of our market is virtually impossible.

    Although Australia’s seafood appetite is minuscule compared to the US, the EU, or Japan, it has the resources and the opportunity to create a better import control system. Such a system would involve designing an electronic platform with automated fraud detection mechanisms that tracks seafood products from the fishing boat, through the supply chain, to the Australian border. Australia can then start to close the sizeable loophole in its efforts to secure a legal and traceable seafood supply.

    Such policies would support sustainable Australian fisheries and help the country’s biggest seafood suppliers to source responsibly. Nearly every country in the world trades seafood: if countries implement smart import policies, illegally sourced seafood will become much easier to intercept.

    The authors appreciate the valuable contributions of Gilles Hosch, a fisheries expert with 25 years of experience in global fisheries compliance and seafood traceability.

    Leslie Roberson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Carissa Klein receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Rosa Mar Dominguez-Martinez receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Fish and chips shouldn’t come with a catch: how Australia can keep illegal seafood off our plates – https://theconversation.com/fish-and-chips-shouldnt-come-with-a-catch-how-australia-can-keep-illegal-seafood-off-our-plates-249481

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: YouTube hosts a lot of garbage – but the government is right to let kids keep watching it

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Page Jeffery, Lecturer in Media and Communications, University of Sydney

    suriyachan/Shutterstock

    When the Australian government passed legislation in November last year banning young people under 16 from social media, it included exemptions for platforms “that are primarily for the purposes of education and health support”. One such platform was YouTube.

    The government is currently conducting private consultations with the tech industry over how the social media ban – which won’t come into effect until at least December this year – will work, and the decision to exempt YouTube.

    Meta and TikTok have criticised the exemption. These tech giants have pointed to research which shows YouTube is the most popular social media platform among young people. They argue all social media sites used by under 16s should be held to the same standard.

    YouTube plays an important part in the digital lives of teens. It is a key source of information and entertainment for young people. At the same time, however, the video streaming platform hosts a diverse range of potentially harmful content, including content espousing misogynistic, racist, hateful and far-right ideologies.

    So is YouTube’s exemption from the social media ban justified?

    A multipurpose platform

    For many teens, YouTube is a major source of information. It offers not only entertainment, but also a sense of community.

    Young people use it to listen to and search for music and for watching television content; to keep up with news; to create their own content; for social connection; and to learn about new topics.

    YouTube has also been found to create a sense of community and boost the collective self-esteem of the LGBTQ community.

    Many organisations – such as mental health and sexual health organisations – seek to deliver important health information to young people through YouTube.

    In my research with families, parents and teens have told me YouTube is an invaluable source of information for both parents and teens. It can facilitate family bonding through co-viewing of either educational or entertaining videos.

    YouTube occupies an important place in the lives of young people. So banning them from it would cut off an important source of information, education, entertainment and connection.

    For many teens, YouTube is a major source of information. It offers not only entertainment, but also a sense of community.
    PixieMe/Shutterstock

    Recommending harmful content

    However, we also know that YouTube – like other social media sites and the internet more broadly – also contains potentially harmful content that the platform may recommend to young users.

    The algorithmic systems that recommend new videos to viewers can be difficult to study due to their opaque nature as commercially valuable IP carefully guarded by platforms.

    But from the studies that do exist, we know YouTube’s recommendation system has served content that is sexually explicit and otherwise distressing to young users.

    A recent report by Reset Tech also found YouTube’s algorithms may promote misogynistic and other extremist content to young people.

    A different design

    YouTube has in place a range of content moderation policies designed to combat these issues. For example, it takes action to prioritise in its recommendations sources from channels it deems reliable and unlikely to contain harmful content, with mixed results.

    Content that might harm young people is explicitly banned under the platform’s community guidelines.

    Of course, most social media platforms have similar restrictions in their guidelines.

    A key difference between YouTube and other social media platforms, however, is the way YouTube is designed to be used.

    Unlike Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, YouTube is not designed to be a social network. Users can and most commonly do go to the platform to passively watch videos, just as they might go to Disney+ or Netflix.

    The social media ban will apply to platforms such as Facebook, X and TikTok.
    Danishch/Shutterstock

    Striking the right balance

    The most alarming research into the impact of social media on young people suggests they are at the highest risk of harm when they are encouraged to actively rather than passively participate on social media platforms.

    Exempting YouTube from the ban strikes the right balance between recognising and valuing forms of cultural practice and consumption important to young people today and protecting them from online harm.

    But we should still continue to demand better practices from YouTube. There is always more these social media companies can do to protect their users from harm. When they fail to do so, they should be held accountable.

    While exempting YouTube from this ban, they should still be held to the highest safety standards under Australia’s Online Safety Act.

    The exemption also does not mean young people should be able to freely engage with YouTube without restriction or oversight.

    We must talk to our kids about what they watch, teach them critical thinking skills and ensure they have rich lives outside of the digital realm.

    One tangible step parents can take to reduce the risk of harm is to turn off the autoplay setting on YouTube for their kids, so videos do not stream back to back, stopping the endless flow of videos and providing an opportunity for viewers to consider what and whether they want to watch another video.

    Catherine Page Jeffery receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with Children and Media Australia.

    Joanne Gray currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council and has previously received funding for research from companies such as Meta Platforms and ByteDance.

    – ref. YouTube hosts a lot of garbage – but the government is right to let kids keep watching it – https://theconversation.com/youtube-hosts-a-lot-of-garbage-but-the-government-is-right-to-let-kids-keep-watching-it-250050

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Online violence and misogyny are still on the rise – NZ needs a tougher response

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Mudgway, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Canterbury

    Yesterday’s revelation of a 2023 standoff between the Human Rights Commission and New Zealand’s internet safety agencies highlights lingering concern about the current online safety code.

    According to the report from RNZ, the commission told NZ Tech and Netsafe that social media companies X Corp. and Meta failed to protect former prime minister Jacinda Ardern from misogynistic and dehumanising violence across their platforms.

    The commission’s claim that the Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms was not fit for purpose apparently drew a sharp legal response from the agencies, which argued the commission showed bias and had overstepped its remit.

    But the historical incident raises important questions New Zealand has yet to grapple with properly.

    Established in 2022, the code is a voluntary set of commitments co-designed with the technology industry, including some social media companies such as Meta and X-Corp.

    Companies become signatories to the code and agree to its commitments. The current signatories are Meta, Google, TikTok, Twitch and X Corp.

    Among other provisions, the code asks signatories to take steps to reduce harmful content on their platforms or services, including harassment (where there is an intent to cause harm), hate speech (which includes sexist hate speech), incitement of violence and disinformation.

    The code is not legally enforceable. Compliance relies on willingness to adopt such measures. But there is an accountability structure in the form of an oversight committee. The public can lodge complaints with the committee if they believe signatories have breached the code, and the committee can remove a signatory from the code.

    When it was launched, the code received some international acclaim as an example of best practice for digital safety. But its critics argued that because it was co-written with social media companies, the commitments were not as strong or effective as they might have been.

    Jacinda Ardern was the target of extreme levels of online misogyny and violent rhetoric.
    Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    Is the code effective?

    Last year, Netsafe rang the alarm about increasing rates of online misogyny and violent extremism, including the targeting of public figures and politicians.

    This raises obvious questions about the code’s effectiveness. Since the Human Rights Commission cited the extreme online violence directed at Jacinda Ardern, former Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman has spoken about the violent online misogyny and racism she experienced while in office.

    These forms of gender-based violence are a breach of women’s human rights. They also lead to women politicians self-censoring, avoiding social media, and generally having less contact with the public.

    Some overseas studies have shown prolonged exposure to online violence has led to women MPs leaving office sooner than planned. Overall, online harm endangers representative democracy and breaches women’s rights to participate in politics.

    The human rights implications also mean the New Zealand government has legal duties under international treaties to prevent online gender-based violence.

    The United Nations has also called on social media companies to do more to prevent the spread of racial hatred. As such, it is a function of the Human Rights Commission to promote and monitor compliance with international standards.

    NZ is out of step internationally

    In its current form, the code is not effective. Its commitments aim to reduce harm rather than eliminate it, and it is not comprehensive about the kinds of harm it wants signatories to reduce.

    For example, it does not include reference to “volumetric” attacks – the type of coordinated harassment campaigns against a person that were directed at Ardern.

    Further, the code’s threshold for “harm” is high, requiring the online violence to pose an imminent and serious threat to users’ safety. This does not easily capture the types of gender-based violence, such as misogynistic hate speech, that over time normalise violence against women.

    The code also emphasises the role of users in managing harmful content, rather than placing a responsibility on the platforms to investigate how their services and technologies might be misused to cause harm.

    Relying on voluntary commitments also puts New Zealand out of step with other countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia which have legally enforceable requirements for social media companies to protect online safety.

    Placing that burden on users – to block, report or remove content – is merely reactive. It does not prevent harm because it has already happened. And for some groups, such as MPs and public figures, the harm they receive can be overwhelming and seemingly endless.

    Preventing online gender-based violence requires proactive measures that are legally enforceable. To fulfil its international obligations, the government should urgently review the need for legal regulation that places the burden of online safety on large social media companies rather than on users.

    Cassandra Mudgway 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. Online violence and misogyny are still on the rise – NZ needs a tougher response – https://theconversation.com/online-violence-and-misogyny-are-still-on-the-rise-nz-needs-a-tougher-response-250033

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: AFL and NRL pre-seasons are among the longest in world sport – here’s why

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joel Garrett, Lecturer in Exercise Science and Physiology, Griffith University

    Australia’s love affair with the major football codes – the Australian Football League (AFL) and National Rugby League (NRL) – is well documented. However, one aspect that stands out to many observers, particularly those overseas, is the length of these leagues’ pre-seasons.

    While global and international sports such as soccer and the United States’ National Football League (NFL) typically have pre-seasons lasting only a few weeks to two months, AFL and NRL pre-seasons can stretch well beyond that, sometimes up to and even surpassing four months.

    Why do these two codes, more than almost any others, devote such an extended block of time to pre-season training?

    The answer lies in a blend of the diverse physical qualities required to play AFL and NRL and the greater risk of injury associated with short preparation times.

    High-impact collisions and diverse physical demands

    Both the AFL and NRL are considered contact team sports. Athletes are required to cover large distances at speed, with frequent contact.

    AFL players can run upwards of 12–17 kilometres per match, at incredibly high intensities, all while executing numerous technical actions, such as kicking, catching, handballing and tackling.

    NRL players face similar challenges. Athletes are required to perform more than 30 high-impact collisions per game combined with repeated bouts of high-intensity activity, such as running and sprinting.

    This blend of endurance, strength and power, combined with the high contact demands, creates a distinct training challenge.

    Off-season programs must therefore develop multiple physical qualities. These include endurance for sustained high-intensity efforts, speed and agility for generating and closing space, and strength and power for tackling, wrestling and contested ball situations.

    A shorter pre-season can limit the time available to improve each of these qualities safely. This in turn increases the likelihood of in-season injuries and reduced performance overall.

    NRL athletes endure some brutal training sessions to prepare for each season.

    Longer pre-seasons and injury prevention

    From a sports science perspective, a key benefit of extended pre-seasons is the gradual increase in training load. This helps reduce injury risk once the season begins.

    Research has shown the importance of progressive overload (gradually increasing training demands in a safe, structured manner), recovery management, and adequate conditioning to tolerate in-season demands.

    Evidence also shows increased pre-season participation, additional pre-season sessions and higher workloads (such as total distance) result in fewer games missed due to injury within the season.

    These findings underscore that a carefully structured, longer preparation phase, even if it appears arduous, can build resilience.

    By gradually but systematically exposing players to both low- and high-intensity running volumes, physical contact, and skill-based sessions, clubs can equip their athletes’ bodies to withstand the onerous demands of an AFL or NRL season.

    What do other codes do?

    European football (soccer) clubs often have limited downtime between league seasons and international fixtures.

    Pre-season often entails high-profile international exhibition tours, leaving little space for the months-long conditioning programs common in AFL and NRL.

    Moreover, the absence of a draft system can mean injured players are simply replaced via the transfer market. This reduces the incentive for longer pre-season conditioning to keep key athletes healthy.

    The NFL’s pre-season is relatively short. It uses a training camp model that includes a few pre-season games in which their “starters” play a limited role due to injury concerns.

    The sport’s stop-start nature and its athletes’ highly specialised positional requirements also results in players having a more specific physical profile. In contrast, AFL and NRL players require a broader physical profile.

    In recent years, the NFL has become increasingly aware of higher injury rates tied to abrupt increases in training load. It is now exploring extended or restructured pre-season protocols that in part aim to reduce injury risk.

    Changes may be afoot

    Interestingly, the AFL itself may face a similar scenario this year.

    In the most recent off-season, many AFL clubs had only two to three weeks of full-squad structured training before Christmas, followed by three weeks off.

    This approach, designed to provide player downtime, might inadvertently produce an effect akin to what the NFL experiences, where shorter preparation periods are linked to higher rates of tendon and soft-tissue injuries.

    Sports scientists at Australian clubs will be monitoring training loads closely when their players return, aiming to avoid the pitfalls of quick turnarounds meeting high-impact competition.

    There’s a reason for these long pre-seasons

    Devoting three to four months to pre-season training is not merely a quirk of the Australian sporting calendar.

    It is a necessary response to the extreme physical demands of these codes. More importantly, a longer, carefully managed pre-season significantly lowers in-season injury risks.

    Clubs need to strike a balance between giving players sufficient rest and allowing enough time for a measured and carefully planned off-season. This not only enhances performance, but reduces injuries.

    Given the evidence, it is little wonder that Australian codes invest so heavily in this crucial preparation phase.

    Darren Burgess, General Manager of High Performance at Adelaide Football Club, contributed to this article.

    Joel Garrett 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. AFL and NRL pre-seasons are among the longest in world sport – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/afl-and-nrl-pre-seasons-are-among-the-longest-in-world-sport-heres-why-248430

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Is Australia’s GST a tax or a tariff? And why has it become a target in the trade wars?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Deane, Professor, Queensland University of Technology

    Australian beef exports to the United States are GST-free and should not be subject to any retaliatory tariff. William Edge/Shutterstock

    The latest round of proposed tariffs from US President Donald Trump includes a response to what the White House describes as “unfair” taxes – specifically, value-added taxes such as Australia’s Goods and Services Tax (GST).

    Most economically advanced countries have a value-added tax (VAT) or sales tax on consumption. This applies to domestic goods and services as well as to imports. The United States is one of the few countries that does not impose a sales tax, though many of the states impose their own sales tax.

    So the argument, according to the White House, is these taxes apply to imported goods, but not to exports.

    Is the GST a tax or a tariff?

    The GST is a broad-based consumption tax of 10%. It applies to most goods and services that are consumed in Australia, regardless of their origin.

    An import tariff – sometimes called an import duty – is imposed exclusively on imported goods as a condition of market access.

    Tariffs are not imposed on domestically produced goods at all. This is the main point of difference with a domestic consumption tax. The GST applies equally to imported and domestically produced goods, adhering to long-agreed international trade rules.

    It remains unclear how the Trump administration intends to implement a tariff that is equivalent to the 10% GST. In effect, this becomes a tax on US consumers if they buy Australian goods.



    Read more:
    What’s a trade war?

    Such an indirect tax would be regressive, which means it falls more heavily on lower-income consumers. The expansion of tariffs to include other nations’ VAT systems also represents a significant overreach into national sovereignty. It has long been accepted that sovereign nations have the right to tax their citizens and businesses as they see fit.

    Indeed, Australia’s GST is among the lowest among economically advanced nations, for which the average is 19%, so the wider impact on US consumers will be even greater.

    Goods that are exported to the US face a new round of tariffs.
    Shutterstock

    Trump is clearly (and unapologetically) seeking to reinvigorate US manufacturing. But the reality is that US labour costs are high. It is also inefficient for any country to produce all the goods and services its population requires. This is particularly the case in such a high-consumption nation as the US.

    The US has been described as a consumer of last resort
    because strong consumer demand has been filled by ever rising imports from other countries. The mutually beneficial relationship between the US and China has enabled the rise of the middle class in China. Trump’s tariffs may shift this, causing geopolitical tensions and economic instability.

    Australia’s response: pausing the digital services tax

    While these tariffs primarily harm US consumers, Australian businesses will also feel the effects. However, it is unclear to what extent. Notably, one main export to the US, unprocessed agricultural products such as beef, are GST-free and should not be subject to any retaliatory tariff.

    However, many other Australian exports could be disadvantaged. Trump’s policies will raise the cost of Australian imported goods in the US market, potentially making them less appealing to US consumers.

    The threat of these tariffs is clearly a problem for a federal government facing an impending election, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has so far responded cautiously. While a diplomatic approach may secure a minor concession, it’s in stark contrast to Canada’s firm stance, which included immediate threats of retaliatory measures.



    Read more:
    Whether we carve out an exemption or not, Trump’s latest tariffs will still hit Australia

    Trump’s use of tariff threats as a negotiating tactic does appear to be having the desired effect, with a potential suspension of Australia’s proposed big tech levy. This proposal would have imposed a tax on major tech firms such as Meta and Google if they did not reach a direct agreement with local media companies.

    Reports indicate the government has put this proposal on hold due to the risk of retaliatory tariffs from the US. Such a tax would likely have invoked the wrath of the US administration, with the digital services levies of Canada and France specifically referenced in the most recent White House tariff announcement.

    It is fair to say the White House statement deliberately misleads any reader into thinking that tariff percentages directly impact on trade volumes.

    This statement ignores a fundamental principle that has made international trade so appealing since World War II – and why economists have argued in support of it for hundreds of years. Countries produce and trade the goods and services at which they are efficient. Efficiency leads to lower costs which, all else being equal, means consumers are better off.

    The statement from the White House, together with Trump’s past pronouncements, demonstrate that all rules to do with international taxation and fairness have been thrown out.

    This does not appear to be the main concern, however, with Australian negotiators potentially willing to put on hold a crucial policy to ensure the long-term viability of local journalism.

    This is just the beginning. Anyone who felt some comfort and safety in the strength of our own democracy should carefully consider the overreach that is occurring through these threats.

    Felicity Deane 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. Is Australia’s GST a tax or a tariff? And why has it become a target in the trade wars? – https://theconversation.com/is-australias-gst-a-tax-or-a-tariff-and-why-has-it-become-a-target-in-the-trade-wars-250041

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Boys not only perform better in maths, they are also more confident about the subject than girls

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Buckley, Senior Research Fellow, Education Research, Policy and Development Division, Australian Council for Educational Research

    Michael Jung/ Shutterstock

    There is a persistent gender gap in Australian schools. Boys, on average, outperform girls in maths.

    We see this in national tests such as NAPLAN, as well as international assessments.

    New Australian Council for Educational Research analysis by my colleague Catherine Underwood shows how boys, on average, are also more confident and positive about maths than girls.

    What can parents do to help their children feel more confident about this core subject?



    Read more:
    Why are boys outperforming girls in maths?

    Boys outperform girls in maths

    An important measure of students’ maths performance is the OECD’s Programme for International Assessment (PISA) test. Run every three years, it measures 15-year-olds’ ability to apply their maths, science and reading knowledge to real-world situations.

    In 2022, 53% of Australian male students achieved the PISA national proficiency standard in maths, compared with 48% of female students. The gender gap on average scores was also greater in Australia than across the OECD.

    As part of PISA, students also completed a questionnaire about their attitudes to learning. ACER’s new analysis uses data from the questionnaire to look at Australian students’ confidence in maths and how this differs between girls and boys.

    Boys outperformed girls in maths skills in the most recent PISA test.
    Monkey Business Images/ Shutterstock

    Why is confidence so important?

    Research suggests students’ confidence has an impact on their academic performance.
    Researchers can call this “self-efficacy”, or the belief in your ability to successfully perform tasks and solve problems.

    Students with high mathematical self-efficacy embrace challenges, use effective problem-solving strategies, and persevere despite difficulties. Those with low self-efficacy may avoid tasks, experience anxiety, and ultimately underperform due to a lack of confidence in their maths abilities.

    We can see this in the 2022 PISA results. Girls in the top quarter on the self-rated “self-efficacy index” scored an average of 568 points on the PISA maths performance test, a staggering 147 points higher than the average for girls in the lowest quarter on the index.

    For boys, the benefit of confidence was even more pronounced. Those in the top quarter of the index scored 159 points on average higher in maths performance than those in the lowest quarter.

    Boys are more confident than girls

    The PISA questionnaire asked students how confident they felt about having to do a range of formal and applied maths tasks.

    Students showed similar levels of confidence solving formal maths tasks such as equations. But male students, on average, showed they were more confident than female students with applied mathematics tasks such as:

    • finding distances using a map

    • calculating a power consumption rate

    • calculating how much more expensive a computer would be after adding tax

    • calculating how many square metres of tiles are needed to cover a floor.

    What about attitude?

    The PISA data also shows Australian boys, on average, have more positive attitudes towards maths than girls.

    For example, in response to the statement “mathematics is easy for me” only 41% of female students agreed, compared with 55% of male students.

    In response to “mathematics is one of my favourite subjects”, 37% of female students agreed, compared with 49% of males.

    But in response to “I want to do well in my mathematics class”, 91% of female students agreed, compared to 92% of males.

    What can parents do at home to help?

    It is troubling that girls, on average, show consistently lower levels of confidence about maths tasks.

    This comes on top of other PISA questionnaire results that have shown in general (not just around maths) that a higher proportion of girls than boys say they feel nervous approaching exams.

    We want all students to have a positive relationship with maths, where they can appreciate maths skills are important in many aspects of their lives, and they’re willing to have a go to develop them.

    Recently, we collaborated with the Victorian Academy of Teaching and Leadership on resources for teachers, students and parents that focus on addressing maths anxiety.

    Research shows how we talk about maths at home is important in shaping students’ attitudes and persistence. Parents can help create a positive atmosphere around maths by:

    • dispelling “maths myths”, such as the idea maths ability is fixed and no amount of effort or practise can improve it

    • talking about how making mistakes is a normal part of learning

    • thinking about about how we forgive mistakes in other areas (such as sport, art or science): how can we treat maths mistakes in a similar way?

    • telling your child they have done a good job when they put effort into their maths learning.

    Parents can also help their children even if they don’t know the answers to maths problems. It’s perfectly fine to say, “I’m not sure how to do that one but who can we ask for help? Let’s talk to the teacher.”

    Modelling a “help-seeking” approach lets children know that it’s OK not to know the answer, the key is to persist and try.



    Read more:
    ‘Maths anxiety’ is a real thing. Here are 3 ways to help your child cope

    Sarah Buckley is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow in the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne and was on the academic advisory group for maths education app TownSquared. Sarah has worked on projects for ACER funded by the national and various state education departments and by ARC research grants.

    – ref. Boys not only perform better in maths, they are also more confident about the subject than girls – https://theconversation.com/boys-not-only-perform-better-in-maths-they-are-also-more-confident-about-the-subject-than-girls-250022

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australian students just recorded the lowest civics scores since testing began. But young people do care about politics

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Collin, Professor, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

    Australian school students’ civics knowledge is the lowest it has been since testing began 20 years ago, according to new national data.

    Results have fallen since the last assessment in 2019 and to the lowest levels since the national civics test began in 2004.

    This follows a federal parliamentary report earlier this month, calling for mandatory civics education in Australian schools (it is currently part of the curriculum but not compulsory). The report cited fears young people are “poorly equipped” to participate in Australian democracy.

    The latest results are certainly concerning. But as a researcher of the political lives of young people, I would caution against assuming young people “don’t care” about politics, or are unable to engage in it.

    We also need to think about how civics education can engage meaningfully with young people and meet their needs.

    What does the new report say?

    This report from the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority is based on a national sample of Year 6 and Year 10 students, who are tested on their civics and citizenship skills. It includes knowledge of democratic principles, the Australian political system and related history.

    The test is supposed to run every three years, but the most recent one was delayed by COVID. In 2024:

    • 43% of Year 6 students attained the “proficient standard”, compared with 53% in 2019

    • 28% of Australian Year 10 students met the proficient standard, compared with 38% in 2019.

    Young people care about history and community

    Alongside their civics skills, students were also asked about their support for a range of “citizenship behaviours”. While these figures have dropped from previous years, they nevertheless indicate most students are engaged in civic issues.

    • 81% of Year 6 students and 75% of Year 10 students thought learning about Australa’s history was “very or quite” important

    • 77% of Year 6 students and 70% of Year 10 students thought participating in activities to benefit the local community was “very or quite” important

    • 85% of Year 6 students and 68% of Year 10 students thought taking part in activities to protect the environment was “very or quite important”.

    Young people are knowledgable and active

    My research with young Australians shows they are interested, knowledgeable and active on civic and political issues in many different ways.

    This includes getting involved in or creating their own organisations, campaigns and online content. The issues range from bullying to mental health, climate change and ending gender-based violence.

    My research also shows even children as young as six have views on how to address complex issues such as climate change.

    When provided with platforms that respect their views, young people show they can research, deliberate and problem-solve. Many have clear opinions on what makes for a good life for themselves, Australia and the world. Initiatives such as a children’s parliament can connect their views directly with those who govern.

    Young people don’t feel included

    But governments and other authorities are historically poor at meaningfully engaging with young people.

    In my work and other research, we continue to hear many students feel they don’t have a genuine voice in the community.

    For example, in the climate movement, young female activists have said they do not feel feel their views are taken seriously by decision-makers because they are under 18.

    This suggests children’s interest and confidence in democracy could be supported by giving them meaningful opportunities to participate before they can vote.

    For example, creating governance mechanisms that include and are accountable to young people on matters that affect them. This should extend to issues which will significantly impact them into the future, such as housing and tax.

    Technology and critical media literacy matter

    We also have to make sure students are supported to get good quality information about issues relevant to them. And that they have the skills and resources to navigate information online.

    Research suggests engagement with news and strong media literacy skills are linked to civic participation.

    Studies have also found many Australian children who have high interest in the news are also involved in social issues online. Research shows social media is a key source for this news (as opposed to traditional sources such as newspapers or television).

    At the same time, just 41% of children aged 8–16 are confident they can tell fake news stories from real ones (which is is similar to survey results for adults).

    We also know some students, particularly from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, lack access to the technology they need for their schooling and everyday lives.

    How can civics and citizenship knowledge be improved?

    The new data certainly indicates the current system for civics education is not working for Australian students.

    As we work to improve young people’s civics knowledge, research indicates any new approach in schools should be created in conjunction with young people themselves. If young people are given a say in how their civics education is designed, they will be more engaged and the lessons will be more effective, especially for students who face disadvantage.

    Other studies we have co-designed and co-researched with young people have resulted in recommendations to trust young people and give them responsibilities and real-world learning opportunities, outside of school. They prioritised self-efficacy (people’s belief they can can control events that affect their lives) and a sense of belonging.

    If civics education is going to be effective, it should acknowledge young people already have an interest and a stake in politics, focus on where they get their information, and involve them in how civics education is designed and delivered.

    We might then have a model for supporting civics and citizenship learning across the community and across people’s lives.

    Philippa Collin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Google, batyr and NSW Health.

    – ref. Australian students just recorded the lowest civics scores since testing began. But young people do care about politics – https://theconversation.com/australian-students-just-recorded-the-lowest-civics-scores-since-testing-began-but-young-people-do-care-about-politics-250047

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: With just 5 years to go, the world is failing on a vital deal to halt biodiversity loss

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justine Bell-James, Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

    Almost 200 nations have signed an ambitious agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity loss but none is on track to meet the crucial goal, our new research reveals.

    The agreement, known formally as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, seeks to coordinate global efforts to conserve and restore biodiversity. Its overarching goal is to safeguard biodiversity for future generations.

    Biodiversity refers to the richness and variety within and between plant and animal species, and within ecosystems. This diversity is declining faster than at any time in human history.

    Five years remain until the framework’s 2030 deadline. Our research shows a more intense global effort is needed to achieve the goals of the agreement and stem the biodiversity crisis.

    Biodiversity is in decline

    Biodiversity decline is a growing global issue. Around one million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction.

    The problem is driven by human activities such as land clearing, climate change, pollution, excessive resource extraction and the introduction of invasive species.

    As biodiversity continues to degrade, the foundation of life on Earth becomes increasingly unstable. Biodiversity loss threatens our food, water and air. It increases our vulnerability to natural disasters and imperils ecosystems crucial for human survival and wellbeing.

    The Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted in late 2022 after four years of consultation and negotiation. It involved 23 core commitments to be met by 2030 involving both land and sea. Key to the deal is protecting areas from future harm, and restoring past harms.

    These aims are captured in two targets.

    The first is ensuring 30% of degraded areas are under “effective restoration” to enhance biodiversity. This could involve replanting vegetation, reducing weeds and other pests, or restoring water to drained areas.

    The second is to effectively conserve and manage 30% of land and sea areas – especially those important for biodiversity and the ways ecosystems function and benefit humans. This could mean creating national or marine parks, or nature refuges on private land.

    Importantly, countries should both increase the size of areas protected or under restoration (a matter of quantity), and choose areas where interventions will most benefit biodiversity (a matter of quality).

    Nations were asked to provide an action plan before October 2024. In a paper published today, we reviewed these plans.

    What we found

    Our findings were disappointing. Only 36 countries (less than one quarter of signatory nations) submitted a plan. Australia was one of them.

    And the plans provided were underwhelming. In particular, nations fell badly short on the restoration target. Only nine out of 36 countries committed to restoring a specific percentage of land and sea.

    For example, Italy pledged only to restore “large surfaces of degraded areas” and Australia committed to restoring “priority degraded areas”.

    Defining commitments with numbers is important, because it allows progress to be monitored and measured, and forces nations to be accountable.

    Of those nine countries that made specific restoration commitments, only six committed to the 30% goal: Aruba, China, Curaçao, Japan, Luxembourg and Uganda.

    The results were better when it came to protecting land and sea. Some 22 of the 36 countries set a percentage target for protection. However, only 14 committed to protecting at least 30% of areas, in line with the goals of the deal.

    Again, quality is also important here. Under the deal nations signed up to, protected land should enhance biodiversity, and cover areas very valuable for biodiversity recovery. However, many nations were silent on the issue of quality when outlining their planned protections. It means their efforts could, in some cases, do little for biodiversity.

    A spotlight on Australia

    In recent years, Australia has sought to establish itself as a biodiversity leader on the international stage. This included hosting the global Nature Positive Summit in October last year.

    Following the summit, the federal government claimed it was:

    a tangible demonstration of Australia’s commitments under the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It showed our willingness to work collaboratively towards the goal of halting and reversing biodiversity loss.

    But despite the rhetoric, our research shows Australia’s plans are not particularly impressive.

    As noted above, Australia does not provide a percentage target for ecosystem restoration. Instead, its plan refers broadly to restoring “priority areas” without defining what these areas are.

    Australia’s plan pledges to identify “priority degraded areas” and define what “under effective restoration” means, but does not outline how this will be done.

    Australia is more aligned with global leaders on protection of biodiversity. It committed to safeguarding 30% of land and water in protected areas.

    However, it provided limited details on how it will select, implement and enforce protection measures. The plan also fails to recognise current shortcomings in protected areas, both in oceans and on land – in particular, Australia’s focus to date on quantity over quality when it comes to selecting sites.

    In contrast, the nation of Slovenia mapped out proposed protected areas.

    So, while Australia did submit an action plan, it has missed the opportunity to be a true global leader.

    Running out of time

    The Global Biodiversity Framework aims to unite nations in the fight to conserve and restore biodiversity. But as our research shows, many countries do not have plans to achieve this, and plans submitted to date are largely inadequate.

    As species and habitats are lost, ecosystems become less stable. This damages human health and wellbeing, as well as economies. Biodiversity loss also undermines vital cultural and spiritual connections to nature.

    All countries must accelerate efforts to avert the biodiversity crisis, and preserve Earth’s precious natural places for future generations.

    Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Environmental Science Program, and Queensland Government’s Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association.

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

    – ref. With just 5 years to go, the world is failing on a vital deal to halt biodiversity loss – https://theconversation.com/with-just-5-years-to-go-the-world-is-failing-on-a-vital-deal-to-halt-biodiversity-loss-249841

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australians are waiting 12 years on average before seeking help for a mental health problem – new research

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Birrell, Researcher, Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney

    Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock

    Australians are waiting an average of 12 years to seek treatment for mental health and substance use disorders, our new research shows.

    While many of us are proactive in looking after our physical health, we appear to be seriously neglecting our mental health, suffering for many years before reaching out for help. Some people never seek help.

    In our research, the length of delay in seeking help varied depending on the type of mental health problem and other factors such as sex and age.

    But delays in getting help mean mental health problems can become more complex, severe and difficult to treat. So it’s important to understand why these delays occur – and how we can reduce them.

    Some key findings

    We used national data from the 2020–22 Australian National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing, a nationally representative survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

    Among the information collected in this survey, respondents were asked about their history of mental health and substance use problems, and when they first sought help from a medical doctor or other professional regarding their symptoms (if at all).

    The survey asked about the most common types of mental health and substance use problems in the general population under three broad categories: mood disorders (for example, depression and bipolar disorder), anxiety disorders (such as social anxiety disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder) and substance use disorders.

    People with mood disorders waited an average of three years before seeking treatment, those with substance use disorders waited an average of eight, and people with anxiety disorders waited the longest to seek treatment – 11 years on average.

    We found people experiencing panic disorder, a type of anxiety disorder, had some of the shortest delays (an average of two years), while those with social anxiety disorder waited the longest (13 years).

    The average delay across all mental health and substance use disorders – 12 years – was calculated based on the prevalence of different conditions. Anxiety disorders, particularly social anxiety disorder, are the most common, which brought up this average.

    We found younger people were more likely to seek help.
    Perfect Wave/Shutterstock

    We also looked at how many people would eventually seek help across their lifetime. Nearly everyone with depression (94%) eventually sought help, but only 25% of people with an alcohol use disorder ever did.

    Women were less likely than men to seek help for alcohol or other drug-related problems but were more likely to reach out for help with anxiety or mood-related concerns.

    Gen Z and millennials were much more likely to seek help than older generations. Compared to people born before 1972, those born between 1992 and 2005 were more than four times as likely to seek treatment for a drug or alcohol problem, more than twice as likely to seek help for a mood disorder, and nearly four times as likely to seek help for an anxiety problem.

    Some limitations

    While the ABS survey is one of the largest and most comprehensive in Australia, it relies on people remembering and accurately reporting when they first experienced symptoms of a mental health or substance use problem, and when they first sought support.

    It was also conducted during the COVID pandemic, a time of heightened stress and increased mental health challenges. However, the impact of this is probably small, given people were asked about their experiences across their entire lifetime.

    The survey also didn’t measure less common (but very impactful) mental health problems such as psychosis or eating disorders.

    How do delays compare to other countries?

    While this data is not perfect, the delays we observed are mostly in line with those seen in other countries. In some ways we are actually doing better.

    The relatively short delays for seeking help for a mood disorder (for example, depression, for which the average delay was three years) are largely consistent with similar studies in the United States, New Zealand, Europe and Asia.

    It’s often several years between when someone first experiences a mental health problem and when they seek treatment.
    Erik Mclean/Unsplash

    While still lengthy, the average delay of 11 years to seek treatment for an anxiety disorder in Australia appears similar if not shorter than in many other countries (ranging between 10–30 years).

    What’s more, when it comes to seeking help for problems with alcohol, things seem to be improving. While overall delays remain long, and most people still don’t seek help for alcohol problems, the delay in getting help appears to have shortened over time in Australia.

    The average time to seek treatment for alcohol use disorder is now eight years shorter than the 18-year delay reported in 2007. This may be due to increased awareness and education around the impact of alcohol use.

    Why do people delay reaching out for help?

    There are a range of reasons someone may delay seeking help. Services are not always available and many carry high out-of-pocket costs. Fear and stigma play a significant role, while many people simply may not know where to seek support or what might help.

    Finding the right treatment can be hard and while some people recover without help, for many these delays come at a huge cost. Delays mean problems can become more complex, severe and difficult to treat.

    We need to actively encourage early help-seeking, as well as continue efforts to reduce the stigma associated with poor mental health. Expanding anti-stigma campaigns and education to encourage people to seek help early could assist with this.

    Alongside these efforts it’s essential that effective treatment services are accessible when people do reach out for help. There has been chronic underinvestment in the mental health treatment system over many decades, while prevalence rates have increased. We need continued and increased investment in mental health treatment, prevention and early intervention.

    Ultimately, by empowering future generations to be proactive about their mental health, we hope we can make going to the doctor for anxiety as normal as doing so for the flu.

    Services available across Australia include the National Alcohol and Other Drug hotline (1800 250 015), Lifeline (13 11 14), Kids Helpline (1800 55 1800) and Head to Health. Each state and territory also has specialised mental health services.

    Louise Birrell receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council and The Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.

    Cath Chapman receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council and The Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.

    Katrina Prior receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

    – ref. Australians are waiting 12 years on average before seeking help for a mental health problem – new research – https://theconversation.com/australians-are-waiting-12-years-on-average-before-seeking-help-for-a-mental-health-problem-new-research-249159

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Should you be allowed to sue a judge? The High Court says no

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Parker, Honorary Professorial Fellow, Melbourne CSHE, The University of Melbourne

    Shutterstock

    Judges in Australian courtrooms have a lot of power. They can decide on someone’s guilt and the punishment for it, including lengthy prison time.

    But what if they get it badly wrong? Should you be able to sue a judge for damages?

    For several centuries the answer has been no in a “superior” court, such as a state Supreme Court, but possibly yes in an “inferior” court, such as a magistrates, district or county court, where most cases are actually heard.

    The High Court of Australia has now ruled that judges are immune from being sued for damages in every court and for all purposes. It is absolute, even if you have been falsely imprisoned.

    But how did this decision come to be, and what does it mean for fair judicial processes?

    The High Court case

    The story behind the ruling began with a legal property dispute between a couple called the Stradfords.

    Judge Salvatore Vasta in the Federal Circuit Court ordered that Mr Stradford should make “full and frank disclosure” of various financial documents. Mrs Stradford complained repeatedly that the disclosure was not complete.

    Judge Vasta adjourned proceedings briefly to allow them to discuss settlement. To give Mr Stradford something to think about, he said he hoped Mr Stradford had brought his toothbrush with him.

    Later that day, Judge Vasta sentenced Mr Stradford to 12 months’ imprisonment for contempt of court in disobeying the disclosure order. Judge Vasta mistakenly assumed a previous judge had already decided Mr Stradford was in contempt.

    Mr Stradford appealed the contempt conviction in the Full Court of the Family Court. It allowed the appeal, concluding “the processes employed [by Judge Vasta] were so devoid of procedural fairness […] and the reasons for judgment so lacking in engagement with the issues of fact and law to be applied” that it would be an “affront to justice” to permit the contempt declaration and the imprisonment order to stand.

    Armed with this finding, Mr Stradford sued Judge Vasta for damages for false imprisonment and won. Judge Vasta then appealed to the High Court, arguing that he was immune from being sued. In its ruling last week, the High Court agreed with him.

    Why can’t judges be sued?

    Immunity from being sued helps protect judicial independence, said the High Court.

    If, at the back of their mind, a judge thinks they might be sued for damages should they make a wrong decision, they might be swayed by that, rather than objectively and impartially applying the law to the facts.

    Immunity also helps to achieve finality in court proceedings and “quell disputes”. Finality is a consideration in all legal systems, and is the reason why some claims are time-barred if not brought within a specified period. You don’t want the same cases dragging on forever.

    The High Court noted that a disappointed litigant can appeal against a decision, but once all appeal avenues have been exhausted, that is that.

    The High Court has ruled judges can’t be sued for their decisions.
    Shutterstock

    If a judge has committed a crime, such as accepting a bribe, then the criminal law can be applied.

    But in the more likely case where the unsuccessful party argues there has been a mistake, or even that the judge was motivated by bias or malice, the only recourse is to appeal. They can’t sue the judge.

    The High Court noted also that a judge can be removed by parliament for misbehaviour or incapacity.

    But there are counter-arguments to which the court didn’t give much attention.

    For those who feel the outcome was wrong, appealing against a decision is very expensive. It’s simply not open to most people, due to the near-disappearance of legal aid in civil cases.

    And the removal of judges by parliaments is extremely rare, while not helping the litigant anyway.

    Is this good public policy?

    In other walks of professional life, indemnity insurance exists. If judges could be sued, but were insured, they would normally not pay compensation personally. And if they could not find insurance, perhaps something needs investigating.

    A compromise position would be possible. Any legal action against a judge could have to exceed a certain threshold of severity to proceed.

    For example, a plaintiff might have to obtain prior permission, and for that they might have to prove malice on the part of the judge or an error so extreme that the judge had been reckless, not merely negligent.

    But courts are different, it seems. Litigants do not make a contract with courts and are not consumers of a court’s services. They are engaging in a public process, where bigger issues are in play.

    The public policy arguments so resoundingly endorsed by the High Court aren’t based on data about what the public thinks, or would necessarily think if all the arguments were presented to them.

    None of this has improved Mr (or Mrs) Stradford’s financial position. No one is going to compensate them.

    Courts are, in a very real sense, a law unto themselves.

    Stephen Parker 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. Should you be allowed to sue a judge? The High Court says no – https://theconversation.com/should-you-be-allowed-to-sue-a-judge-the-high-court-says-no-249939

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: When a bishop called on Trump to ‘have mercy’, she was following the old Christian tradition of parrhesia

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Morwenna Ludlow, Professor of Christian History and Theology, University of Exeter

    Ambrose.

    When Bishop Mariann Budde closed her sermon at the National Prayer Service at Washington National Cathedral on January 21 she called on Donald Trump, who was sitting in front of her, “to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now”.

    Trump demanded an apology later the same day from “the so-called Bishop” who he said was “nasty in tone”. Republican congressman Mike Collins even suggested that Budde (a US citizen) should be deported.

    The bishop was building on a long tradition of Christian leaders using bold speech. But the idea of bold speech goes back further – to the concept of “parrhesia” in democratic Athens when every freeborn male citizen had the right to speak freely in public debates.

    French philosopher Michel Foucault highlighted that with the decline of democracy, parrhesia came to mean boldly speaking truth to power. For instance, in the Roman Empire, it meant having the bravery to speak to an emperor, a governor, or one’s master as if one was their equal.

    Early Christians picked up on this use of the term in the New Testament. The Acts of the Apostles describes the arrest of Peter and John for healing and preaching in Jerusalem and recounts that the assembled “rulers, elders and scribes” were amazed to hear such parrhesia from “uneducated and ordinary men”.

    The apostles were so popular that the council released them after vainly threatening them to keep quiet. Peter and John’s own community of followers was even said to be so inspired by their bold example that they prayed to be given parrhesia too, a prayer which was immediately answered by the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:29, 31). Parrhesia here is seen as a powerful divine gift which enables ordinary people to challenge dominant religious authorities.

    Several sermons on martyrs from John Chrysostom (who was apppointed as the archbishop of Constantinople in AD397) close with exhortations to emulate a martyr’s parrhesia. Chrysostom’s Discourse on Blessed Babylas and against the Greeks describes a bishop who reprimanded an emperor for murdering a child hostage. Chrysostom praises Bishop Babylas for moderate parrhesia, guided by reason, keeping anger and other emotions in check. It recalls the advice of the philosopher Plutarch in “How to tell a flatterer from a friend”: parrhesia must be respectful, in due measure and at the right moment.

    Babylas’s moderate parrhesia produces astonished admiration from the crowd, but it provoked the outraged emperor to order Babylas’ execution.

    Such stories set expectations for the behaviour of bishops even under Christian emperors. Scholars have shown how bishops have exploited their educational and social standing to leverage limited influence with governors and sometimes even emperors.

    Gregory of Nazianzus tells how his friend Basil, a 4th century bishop, faced down the rage of an imperial representative who “roared like a lion till most men dared not approach him”, threatening “confiscation, banishment, torture, death”. When Basil refused to back down, the astonished official declared that no-one had spoken to him with such parrhesia. “Perhaps you’ve not met a bishop before,” Basil replied. “Generally, we know our place and we submit to the law. But where the interests of God are at stake, we care about nothing else.”

    Two of the most famous examples of bishops who exercised parrhesia against imperial authority were the aforementioned Chrysostom and Ambrose (who became bishop of Milan in AD374). Both Chrysostom and Ambrose wrote substantial treatises which (among other things) defended the priest’s right to censure whomever was guilty of sin. Chrysostom warns that fear of powerful authorities causes people to flatter them rather than speaking the truth. Ambrose makes a similar point, reminding his audience that John the Baptist did not flatter King Herod, despite having reason to fear him. These comments resonate with Foucault’s observation that a speaker addressing someone more powerful must choose between flattery and parrhesia.

    Bishop Budde speaking at Washington National Cathedral.

    But the point of these examples is that by the 4th century there was a strong belief that part of the job of being a bishop was being prepared to speak boldly against wrongdoing – even if the wrongdoer was an emperor. And the power of their parrhesia was not so much the success (or otherwise) of their requests, but the way their bold speech sent ripples out into the wider community.

    It is here that we can identify resonances with the case of Bishop Budde. First, parrhesia involves a direct, public but personal appeal to someone who could normally expect to be in authority over the speaker (the Jewish council of elders, a Roman governor).

    The appeal is often made respectfully, but it is still risky and disruptive. It challenges the addressee’s declared vision of the truth, setting against it the speaker’s own sources of authority, including appeals to the divine.

    In Budde’s case too we find this tension between respect and challenge. In an interview for the New Yorker, Budde reflected that she “needed to honor the office of the President and the fact that millions of people placed their trust in him”.

    By addressing Trump respectfully, she acknowledged he had the authority to be merciful. But in drawing on the authority of scripture, Christian tradition and her episcopal role, she challenged the president’s moral authority on key questions of public policy.

    Basil’s parrhesia astonished the imperial representative, but gave his friend Gregory a model for his own episcopal ministry. Similarly, Budde had a two-fold audience in mind. She used parrhesia respectfully but firmly to challenge the authority of a powerful person who did not expect to be challenged and was outraged when they were.

    It is evident that Budde’s past experience of criticising Trump (she commented in the New York Times about Trump posing for a photo with a Bible in 2020) left her in no doubt that her “audacious” direct appeal to the president would bring anger on herself. But she also addressed a wider audience, intending that “people overhearing me talk to Trump” would hear words of solidarity and hope for them.

    The power of Budde’s speech does not depend on the success of her appeal for mercy but in the disruptive nature of her challenge to Trump’s moral authority and the way it rippled out into wider audiences, provoking astonishment, anger or praise.

    History prompts us to look harder at the power dynamics that create such varied and highly charged emotional responses. Now, as in the ancient world, it is in the absence of an open hearing for all, when bold speech is needed.

    Morwenna Ludlow will receive funding from the Leverhulme Trust for a project on ‘God and Good Speech’ for two years from September 2025. She is a priest in the Church of England and has an honorary role as Canon Theologian at Exeter Cathedral.

    – ref. When a bishop called on Trump to ‘have mercy’, she was following the old Christian tradition of parrhesia – https://theconversation.com/when-a-bishop-called-on-trump-to-have-mercy-she-was-following-the-old-christian-tradition-of-parrhesia-248494

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Geoengineering is politically off-limits – could a Trump presidency change that?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hugh Hunt, Professor of Engineering Dynamics and Vibration, University of Cambridge

    One possible plan involves adding clouds in the upper atmosphere to reflect away sunlight. Thiago B Trevisan / shutterstock

    Donald Trump’s second presidential term is likely to mean big changes for those of us interested in geoengineering. The term refers to deliberate large-scale manipulation of the climate, perhaps by blocking out some sunlight or directly removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Sometimes called climate engineering, we prefer the term “climate repair”.

    Trump is not the most natural supporter of climate change interventions. He is set to expand oil and gas production hot on the heels of the most terrible wildfires in California. At some point the US could see hurricanes on scales even more extreme than Katrina or Helene.

    Extreme weather will become harder to ignore. Trump could of course downplay any link to climate change but there’s a chance this might trigger him to decide emergency action is required and demand to know more about climate engineering options.

    After all, Trump is close to certain tech figures who like big technological solutions to global problems. He likes to act fast and is prepared to deal with democratic reactions later. In those circumstances he might feel that we should do whatever it takes to deploy new climate-saving strategies at speed.

    The most effective methods for cooling the planet involve making the Earth more reflective so that it absorbs less heat from the sun. One option, known as stratospheric aerosol injection, involves spraying sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions.

    Clouds could also be altered to become more reflective, an option known as marine cloud brightening. We can even make ice in the Arctic more reflective by thickening it during the winter months so that it lasts longer in the summer, reflecting the sun’s heat back into space.

    The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines added so much ash to the upper atmosphere the world cooled by about 0.5°C for a year.
    James St John / Flickr

    These technologies sound rather fanciful. Some might find them scary. But with the devastation of hurricanes and wildfires, Trump could potentially instruct the US military to give aerosol injection a go. At present, the technology would rely on high-altitude jets to take millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide up to the stratosphere above the Arctic, and the US has a lot of these planes.

    Alternatively, Trump might take the opposite path and say “this is just part of the natural cycle of weather”. Climate-change deniers or those who believe reducing emissions alone will work to hit the 1.5°C or even 2°C targets may be given a platform to convince us all that there is no need for geoengineering.

    Geoengineering as an investment

    Maybe there is a middle ground. Trump could decide to support geoengineering research to help the insurance industry. If insurance companies will benefit by having fewer storms and fires, then this would be good for the US economy. So perhaps some expenditure on research right now may be a strategic investment.

    Behind the scenes are deep discussions on geoengineering governance. There are some who argue that geoengineering is so risky for the climate (what if the world cools too much? are we prepared for any unintended consequences?) that it shouldn’t be researched – or at least the research should not be funded by governments.

    Others argue that global governance and democratic issues (who is in charge? who gets a say?) need to be addressed before any research can begin. Then there’s the “slippery slope” argument, that once we start then we’ll never stop.

    Until now these kinds of arguments have slowed the pace of research, but Trump could say that the current position is wrong, as it holds back our knowledge of something which might help the US economy. If Trump decides to unlock geoengineering as an opportunity, then he may not just provide funding but instruct the national labs to get on with research at pace, thereby accelerating our knowledge of the different options. With good data we can make informed decisions.

    How much would this cost? It turns out that geoengineering research is not very expensive and Trump may figure that the potential upside is huge. If he gets excited about it, then geoengineering might suddenly capture the imagination of the US public.

    There is increased interest around the world so the situation in the US is being watched closely. With additional funding and instructions from the new president, geoengineering would soon become established in the mainstream.

    Our team at the Centre for Climate Repair in Cambridge are not the only ones thinking about all of this. This is a hot topic and one which is likely to see significant changes in the coming year.

    Hugh Hunt is affiliated with the Centre for Climate Repair at the University of Cambridge. The centre receives funds from various philanthropic sources.

    Shaun Fitzgerald receives funding from Philanthropists, Trusts and Foundations, and Government grants to work on a range of activities including greenhouse gas removal through and climate engineering.

    – ref. Geoengineering is politically off-limits – could a Trump presidency change that? – https://theconversation.com/geoengineering-is-politically-off-limits-could-a-trump-presidency-change-that-248589

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Remembering the Poly-1: what NZ’s forgotten homegrown school computer can teach us about state-led innovation

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Rickerby, Lecturer, School of Product Design, University of Canterbury

    The Poly-1. MOTAT , CC BY-NC

    Some 45 years ago, a team of staff and students at Wellington Polytechnic designed and built a desktop computer with an operating system customised for the needs of New Zealand schools.

    The Poly-1 was far ahead of international competition, but New Zealand failed to capitalise on the opportunity. At the time, public investment in a new knowledge-based industry ran counter to both “Think Big” industrial policy and the emerging neoliberal agenda in government.

    As New Zealand looks to scale up investment in artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced technologies, the story of the Poly-1 has enduring lessons about research and innovation policy – and the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration.

    Leading the world

    The Poly-1 was designed in 1980 as a learning device and teacher support tool. It was advanced for its time with colour graphics and powerful processors. It incorporated a networking feature, enabling up to 32 workstations across multiple sites to communicate over a real-time connection.

    Its tough, rounded fibreglass case with carry handles and integrated keyboard was ergonomically designed to handle the rigours of classroom use. A range of bold colour options were meant to make it more relatable for children.

    Fifty working prototypes were built in less than a year. A large group of volunteer teachers worked over the summer break to integrate course content and ensure it was ready for use in classrooms.

    In 1981, the Department of Education signed a NZ$10 million purchase agreement for 1,000 units per year over a five year period.

    The Poly-1 went into production under Polycorp, a joint venture with Lower Hutt-based Progeni. Manufacturing was backed by the state-owned Development Finance Corporation venture capital fund.

    Polycorp was poised for scale with a field-tested product and unique distributed learning model. Wide deployment in classrooms would position New Zealand as leading the world in maths education and applied computing.

    Blocking innovators and boosting importers

    Voicing outrage at this use of public funds, corporate lobbyists began publicly attacking “bureaucrats and boffins”. Privately, they put pressure on ministers sympathetic to a nascent deregulation agenda. They argued only the market could properly decide which computers were used.

    In 1982, then prime minister Robert Muldoon’s cabinet scuttled the deal, halting higher volume production and discarding two years of work.

    The beneficiary of the broken contract was Apple, which targeted New Zealand as its first education market outside the United States. It gave away free Apple II computers to schools, then followed up by offering larger volumes to the Department of Education at below cost.

    The Apple computers were unsupported by curriculum resources, lacked teacher training and were soon obsolete.

    By the mid 1980s, the rollout of computers in classrooms stalled as the Fourth Labour Government prioritised administrative reforms in education. Schools were left on their own to deal with hawkish IT vendors and distributors.

    Missed opportunities

    Relying on an underdeveloped market to serve the growing demand for computers in education led to anti-competitive practices and a devaluing of the teaching expertise behind the software and services.

    It’s unlikely the Poly-1 would have survived through the early 1990s as cheap IBM-compatible clones became widespread. But its ultimate end was a consequence of finance rather than technology.

    The collapse of the government-owned Development Finance Corporation in a complex tangle of failed property investments left Progeni directly exposed as a debtor to the BNZ, which was also teetering on the edge of collapse.

    In late 1989, Progeni was forced into receivership by the bank, which asset-stripped the company and sold it at a nominal value.

    Innovation is interdisciplinary

    The current government has recently announced major structural changes to New Zealand’s research and innovation system, including a new Public Research Organisation focused on advanced technology.

    Institutional reform is much needed and long overdue, but significant challenges remain. A narrow focus on science and technology driving economic growth is not enough. More attention to detail is needed to bridge from current capacity to a desired future state.

    The Poly-1 required collaboration with industrial designers and teachers to become market-ready – and the same is true today.

    Successfully commercialising research in AI and other advanced technologies requires contributions from experts across design, social science, arts and business.

    Like personal computers in 1980, AI is a new category with contested meanings. This has an impact on policy and the reception of new products.

    Discussions about state-led innovation often default to arguments about picking winners. But direct support for industries and firms is only part of the broader picture.

    In order to see economic and public benefits of investment in AI, the government has a role to play in coordinating interdisciplinary efforts across sectors. This requires visions for the future that are a practical response to the needs of individuals, businesses and communities.

    Countries like New Zealand have so far been consumers rather than producers of current generation AI. Changing this balance requires willingness to learn from past mistakes to support leadership in both innovation and regulation. Poly-1 still has lessons to teach us.

    Mark Rickerby was the recipient of an arts innovation grant from Manatū Taonga, Ministry for Culture & Heritage in 2021. He is a member of the New Zealand Game Developers Association (NZGDA).

    – ref. Remembering the Poly-1: what NZ’s forgotten homegrown school computer can teach us about state-led innovation – https://theconversation.com/remembering-the-poly-1-what-nzs-forgotten-homegrown-school-computer-can-teach-us-about-state-led-innovation-249577

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: YouTube at 20: how it transformed viewing in eight steps

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Connock, Senior Fellow, Said Business School, University of Oxford

    Chay Tee

    The world’s biggest video sharing platform, YouTube, has just turned 20.

    It was started inauspiciously in February 2005 by former PayPal employees Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim – with a 19-second video of Karim exploring San Diego Zoo.

    That year, YouTube’s disruption of the media timeline was minimal enough for there to be no mention of it in The Guardian’s coverage of TV’s Digital Revolution at the Edinburgh TV Festival.

    Twenty years on, it’s a different story.

    YouTube is a massive competitor to TV, an engagement beast, uploading as much new video every five minutes as the 2,400 hours BBC Studios produces in a whole year. The 26-year-old YouTube star Mr Beast earned US$85 million (£67 million) in 2024 from videos – ranging from live Call of Duty play-alongs to handing out 1,000 free cataract operations.

    As a business, YouTube is now worth some US$455 billion (2024 Bloomberg estimate). That is a spectacular 275 times return on the US$1.65 billion Google paid for it in 2006. For the current YouTube value, Google could today buy British broadcaster ITV about 127 times.

    YouTube has similar gross revenue (US$36.1 billion in 2024) to the streaming giant Netflix – but without the financial inconvenience of making shows, since most of the content is uploaded for free.

    YouTube’s first video: a 19-second look at the elephants of San Diego Zoo.

    YouTube has 2.7 billion monthly active users, or 40% of the entire global population outside China, where it is blocked. It is also now one of the biggest music streaming sites, and the second biggest social network (to Facebook), plus a paid broadcast channel for 100 million subscribers.

    YouTube has built a video Library of Babel, its expansive shelves lined eclectically with Baby Shark Dance, how to fix septic tanks, who would win a shooting war between Britain and France … and quantum physics.

    The site has taken over global children’s programming to the point where Wired magazine pointed out that the future of this genre actually “isn’t television”. But there are flaws, too: it has been described as a conduit for disinformation by fact checkers.

    So how did all that happen? Eight key innovations have helped YouTube achieve its success.

    1. How new creativity is paid for

    Traditional broadcast and print uses either the risk-on, fixed cost of hiring an office full of staff producers and writers, or the variable but risky approach of one-off commissioning from freelancers. Either way, the channel goes out of pocket, and if the content fails to score with viewers, it loses money.

    YouTube did away with all that, flipping the risk profile entirely to the creator, and not paying upfront at all. It doesn’t have to deal with the key talent going out clubbing all night and being late to the set, not to mention other boring aspects of production like insurance, cash flow or contracts.

    2. The revenue model of media

    YouTube innovated by dividing any earnings with the creator, via an advertising income split of roughly 50% (the exact amount varies in practice). This incentivises creators to study the science of engagement, since it makes them more money. Mr Beast has a team employed just to optimise the thumbnails for his videos.

    3. Advertising

    Alongside parent company Google/Alphabet, and especially with the introduction (March 2007) of YouTube Analytics and other technologies, the site adrenalised programmatic video advertising, where ad space around a particular viewer is digitally auctioned off to the highest buyer, in real time.

    That means when you land on a high-rating Beyoncé video and see a pre-roll ad for Grammarly, the advertiser algorithmically liked the look of your profile, so bid money to show you the ad. When that system works, it is ultra efficient, the key reason why the broad, demographics-based broadcast TV advertising market is so challenged.

    4. Who makes content

    About 50 million people now think they are professional creators, many of them on YouTube. Influencers have used the site to build businesses without mediation from (usually white and male) executives in legacy media.

    This has driven, at its best, a major move towards the democratisation and globalisation of content production. Brazil and Kenya both have huge, eponymous YouTube creator economies, giving global distribution to diverse voices that realistically would been disintermediated in the 20th century media ecology.

    5. The way we tell stories

    Traditional TV ads and films start slow and build to a climax. Not so YouTube videos – and even more, YouTube Shorts – which prioritise a big emotive hit in the first few seconds for engagement, and regular further hits to keep people there. Mr Beast’s leaked internal notes describe how to do sequential escalation, meaning moving to more elaborate or extreme details as a video goes on: “An example of a one thru three minute tactic we would use is crazy progression,” he says, reflecting his deep homework. “I spent basically five years of my life studying virality on YouTube.”

    6. Copyright

    Back in 2015, if someone stole your intellectual property – say, old episodes of Mr Bean – and re-broadcast it on their own channel, you would call a media lawyer and sue. Now there is a better option – Content ID – to take the money instead. Through digital rights monetisation (DRM), owners can algorithmically discover their own content and claim the ad revenue, a material new income stream for producers.

    7. Video technicalities

    Most technical innovations in video production have found their way to the mainstream via YouTube, such as 360-degree, 4k, VR (virtual reality) and other tech acronyms. And now YouTube has started to integrate generative AI into its programme-producing suite for creators, with tight integration of Google’s Veo tools.

    These will offer, according to CEO Neal Mohan, “billions of people around the world access to AI”. This is another competitive threat to traditional producers, because bedroom creators can now make their own visual effects-heavy fan-fiction episodes of Star Wars.

    8. News

    YouTube became a rabbit hole of disinformation, misinformation and conspiracy, via a reinforcement-learning algorithm that prioritises view time but not editorial accuracy. Covid conspiracy fans got to see “5G health risk” or “chemtrail” videos, because the algorithm knew they might like them too.

    How can the big, legacy media brands respond? Simple. By meeting the audience where the viewers are, and putting their content on YouTube. The BBC has 14.7 million YouTube subscribers. ITV is exploiting its catalogue to put old episodes of Thunderbirds on there. Meanwhile in February 2025, Channel 4 also announced success in reaching young viewers via YouTube. Full episode views were “up 169% year-on-year, surpassing 110 million organic views in the UK”.

    Alex Connock has worked or consulted for BBC, Channel 4, ITV and Meta.

    – ref. YouTube at 20: how it transformed viewing in eight steps – https://theconversation.com/youtube-at-20-how-it-transformed-viewing-in-eight-steps-250083

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Europe left scrambling in face of wavering US security guarantees

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

    European leaders are scrambling to respond to what looks like the end of reliable US protection of the continent. It is unclear what the “main European countries” (which includes the UK) might be able to agree at a hastily convened meeting in Paris on Monday February 17. But individual countries, including the UK and Germany, have come forward to put concrete offers on the table for Ukraine’s security, which could include putting their troops on the ground.

    This unusual circling of the wagons was triggered by the 2025 Munich Security Conference, which ended the previous day. It brought to a close a week of remarkable upheaval for Europe, leaving no doubt that two already obvious trends in the deteriorating transatlantic relationship accelerated further.

    What the world saw was unabashed US unilateralism when it comes to the war in Ukraine. Ominously, there was also a clear indication of the extent of American intentions to interfere in the domestic political processes of European countries – most notably the upcoming German parliamentary elections on February 23.

    None of this should have come as a surprise. But the full-force assault by Donald Trump’s envoys to Europe was still sobering – especially once all its implications are considered. What was, perhaps, more surprising was that European leaders pushed back and did so in an unusually public and unequivocal way.

    Over the course of just a few days, two of the worst European fears were confirmed. First, the Trump administration is pushing ahead with its idea of a US-Russia deal to end the war in Ukraine. And all the signs are that Washington plans to leave Ukraine and the EU out of any negotiations and to their own devices when it comes to post-ceasefire security arrangements.

    On February 12, the US president announced he had spoken at length with Russian president Vladimir Putin, and subsequently informed Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky of the conversation. The same day, US defence secretary Pete Hegseth, confirmed at a press conference after a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels that direct negotiations between Russia and the US would begin immediately. They will not include any European or Ukrainian officials, he said.

    Hegseth also poured cold water on any hopes that there would be robust US security guarantees for Ukraine. He explicitly ruled out US troops for any peacekeeping forces deployed by other Nato members, or that any attack on those forces would be considered an attack on the whole alliance under article 5 of the Nato treaty.

    The European response was swift and, at least on paper, decisive. Right after Hegseth’s comments in Brussels, the Weimar+ group (Germany, France, Poland + Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, the EU’s diplomatic service and the European Commission) issued a joint statement reiterating their commitment to enhanced support in defence of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    On February 14, the EU’s top officials – European council president António Costa and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen – met with Zelensky on the margins of the conference. They assured him of the EU’s “continued and stable support to Ukraine until a just, comprehensive and lasting peace is reached”.

    The following day, Costa’s speech in Munich reiterated this commitment. Similar to earlier comments by Nato’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, Costa underlined Europe’s determination to “to act better, stronger and faster in building the Europe of defence”.

    But these declarations of the EU’s determination to continue supporting Ukraine do not reflect consensus inside the Union on such a position. Weimar+ only includes a select number of EU member states, institutions and the UK, underlining the continuing difficulties in achieving unanimity on critical security and defence issues. Unsurprisingly, Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, issued a scathing condemnation of the Weimar+ statement as a “sad testament of bad Brusselian leadership”.

    Orbán’s comments play right into many Europeans’ fears about another dark side of Trump’s agenda when it comes to transatlantic relations. As foreshadowed in the influential Project 2025 report by a coalition of conservative US thinktanks, the Trump administration is intent on weakening European unity. This will include preventing the UK from slipping “back into the orbit of the EU” and “developing new allies inside the EU – especially the Central European countries”.

    Opening up divides

    The US vice-president, J.D. Vance, used his speech in Munich to claim that the real threat to European security was not coming from Russia or China, but rather “from within”. He went on to chide “EU commissars” and insinuated that Europe’s current leaders had more in common with the “tyrannical forces on this continent” who lost the cold war.

    In Romania, where presidential elections were cancelled after evidence of massive Russian election interference emerged, opposition parties revelled in Vance’s comments that the move had been based on the “flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbours”. The vice-president has further exacerbated political divisions in a key European and Nato ally right on the border with Ukraine.

    Vance subsequently sought out Alice Weidel, the co-leader of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD). The pair reportedly discussed the war in Ukraine, German domestic politics and the so-called brandmauer. This is the agreement between centre-right and left-wing parties in Germany to form a “firewall” to prevent extreme right-wing parties from joining coalitions, which has recently been weakened.

    Their meeting was widely criticised as yet another American attempt for the party to boost its chances at Germany’s upcoming parliamentary elections on February 23. Referring to Germany’s historical experience with Nazism, the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz defended the need to hold the line against far-right political parties like the AfD.

    Polar shift

    There have been many watershed moments and wake-up calls for Europe in the past. What is different now is that a new multipolar order is emerging – and Europe is not one of its poles. Equally importantly, given the determination of this US administration to upend the existing international order, Europe is not a part of any pole anymore either.

    Simultaneously at stake are European unity and the transatlantic relationship. These are the two key pillars that have ensured European security, democracy and prosperity since the end of the second world war. Out of necessity, Europe will most likely have to adjust to a much-weakened transatlantic relationship. But the European project will not survive without unity.

    This is a critical juncture for Europe. The continent needs to define its future place and role in the dysfunctional love triangle of Trump, Putin and Xi, a triumvirate that will shape and dominate the new global order.

    Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    – ref. Europe left scrambling in face of wavering US security guarantees – https://theconversation.com/europe-left-scrambling-in-face-of-wavering-us-security-guarantees-249978

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Feel like you’re in a funk? Here’s what you can do to get out of it – and how you can prevent it from happening in the future

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jolanta Burke, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Positive Health Sciences, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

    Whatever the reason, there are many things you can do to get out of a funk. Vectorium/ Shutterstock

    Are you feeling worn out? Struggling with lingering sadness, anxiety or feelings of indifference? If so, you might be stuck in a funk.

    There are many reasons you might find yourself in a funk – including returning home after a holiday, not being sure what your goals in life are and a lack of meaning and purpose driving you forward. Sometimes, there’s no clear reason why we find ourselves in a funk.

    Whatever the cause, don’t lose hope. There are many things you can do to turn the way you’re feeling around.

    Ready to make a change? The Quarter Life Glow-up is a new, six-week newsletter course from The Conversation’s UK and Canada editions.

    Every week, we’ll bring you research-backed advice and tools to help improve your relationships, your career, your free time and your mental health – no supplements or skincare required. Sign up here to start your glow-up at any time.

    1. Express yourself

    As obvious as it sounds, one of the best ways to get out of a funk is exploring the reasons you’re feeling this way.

    Try writing down your deepest thoughts and feelings without judgement – no matter how disjointed they are. Or, grab a paintbrush, spray paint, pencil or chalk and express your emotions through art. You might even choose to dance, letting your movements convey what you’re feeling and help you get to the root of your funk.

    Whatever form of self-expression works for you, all that matters is getting your feelings out. This will help you make sense of what’s causing your funk, and may make it easier to overcome.

    2. Remember the good times

    When we’re in a funk, we’re often overwhelmed by feelings of sadness or indifference. It can be hard to reduce these negative emotions – especially since negative feelings serve a purpose, by helping us understand what’s going on inside.

    Instead of trying to banish bad feelings, try instead to layer positive emotions on top of them. This may help balance your emotions out.

    You can do this by closing your eyes and savouring a happy moment from the past when you felt alive, vibrant and fulfilled. Use every sense as you relive those joyful memories.

    3. Connect with someone

    Research shows the most fulfilled people don’t bury themselves in their thoughts when feeling down. Instead, they look outward – engaging with others and their surroundings.

    So when you’re in a funk, try finding ways of connecting, even briefly, with the people around you. Even a simple conversation with a stranger might lift your spirits.

    Or take it a step further if you can and do something kind for someone – or try volunteering. This may help break you out of your low mood by giving you a sense of fulfilment?

    4. Heal in nature

    Nature is shown to improve wellbeing in many ways – such as lowering blood pressure, refreshing your mind and reminding you that you’re part of something larger than yourself.

    A walk in the park may have many benefits for your wellbeing.
    GoodStudio/ Shutterstock

    If you’ve been feeling down, try going for a walk in the park or find a quiet place to stop on a hike. Lift your head to the sky, listen for the birds singing, immerse yourself in the foliage and let the sound of water wash over you. All of these things are linked with better mental health.

    Preventing a funk

    Doing any of these activities even just once can make a difference to the way your feeling. The more often you do them, the better.

    And once you’ve broken out of your funk, there are things you can do to avoid slipping into one in the future.

    1. Build resilience

    Resilience isn’t just about bouncing back. It’s more about finding the right resources to help you get out of a funk – and knowing how to use these resources effectively.

    For example, if connecting with your friends helps boost your wellbeing, this would be considered one of your “resources” that can help break you out of a funk. Of course, schedules can get in the way, so you’ll need to to find a time that works best for everyone.

    This is what resilience is all about. Identifying your go-to resources for preventing those low feelings can help you create a ready-made toolkit to draw from whenever you feel a funk coming on. To build your tool-kit, think about the things that made the biggest difference in pulling you out of a funk the last time.

    2. Cultivate hope

    Hope isn’t just wishful thinking. It’s about cultivating the will to keep moving forward and finding a way to get there. It’s a pathway to a better life, keeping us focused on growth.

    But one of the challenges in building hope is the lack of a clear vision of where we want to be. To overcome this, take some time to imagine your best-case scenario – what your life would look like ten years from now if everything you’ve ever hoped for came true.

    Spend 20 minutes writing it down. Don’t stop to worry about spelling or grammar (this is just for you). Repeat this exercise as often as needed to create your ideal future.

    When you’re finished, write down how you can achieve what you hope for. Having a well-defined vision of your best possible self can help keep you motivated and prevent you from feeling stuck – and will also give you a reserve of hope to draw upon when facing hard times.

    3. Practise self-acceptance

    Most importantly, focus on practising self-acceptance. Everyone experiences rough patches, so don’t be hard on yourself for being in a funk — it’s just a temporary state.

    Embrace where you are and accept yourself fully, regardless of your current situation. And remember that self-acceptance doesn’t mean resignation. It’s about acknowledging, “It’s okay to be me,” while also envisioning how you want “me” to evolve in the future. With this mindset, you can work towards becoming the person you aspire to be.

    Unlike trees, which are rooted in place, we have the flexibility to grow and change. Remember this the next time you start feeling stuck.

    Jolanta Burke 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. Feel like you’re in a funk? Here’s what you can do to get out of it – and how you can prevent it from happening in the future – https://theconversation.com/feel-like-youre-in-a-funk-heres-what-you-can-do-to-get-out-of-it-and-how-you-can-prevent-it-from-happening-in-the-future-235986

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: AI vampires could save Buffy fan favourites like Angel and Spike from a reboot recast

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Valentina Signorelli, Associate Professor in Film and TV, University of Greenwich

    Buffy fans are rejoicing that a reboot of the series by Oscar-winning director Chloé Zhao is imminent, with Sarah Michelle Gellar set to reprise the title role.

    For millennials like myself who grew up devouring the show (to the point of creating a new academic field, Buffy studies), this news is extremely exciting. However, some critical details remain unclear.

    When Gellar addressed the rumour of a reboot in an Instagram post on February 6, her co-star David Boreanaz, who played Buffy’s first love interest, Angel, commented: “Excited for you and your journey. Enjoy the moments and continue to give back to fans.”

    His words, which seem to suggest he won’t be returning as Angel, allude to a significant challenge facing the reboot. What to do about now-visibly older cast members such as Boreanaz (now 55) who play ageless vampires? James Marsters, who played Buffy’s punk-rebel lover, Spike, faces a similar problem: he is now 62.

    However, in the two decades since the final episode aired, there have been significant advancements in technology that may offer a way around having to sideline or recast fan favourites. The solution could involve the use of AI de-ageing technology.

    AI vampires

    De-ageing technology isn’t new to Hollywood. AI rejuvenation has been used in a number of blockbusters over the last few years – take Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino in The Irishman (2019), for example. More recently, Tom Hanks was de-aged using AI for the graphic novel adaptation Here.

    AI has also been used to restore actors’ voices. This effect was used for the voice of Val Kilmer in Top Gun: Maverick (2022). Kilmer had lost his voice as a result of his battle with throat cancer.

    How de-ageing technology was used in The Irishman.

    A mixed voice-and-vision technique has also allowed The Mandalorian (2020) and The Book of Boba Fett (2021) to bring back a young Luke Skywalker. And Roadrunner: A Film About Anthony Bourdain (2021) controversially used AI to recreate the late chef’s timber for the voiceover.

    However, AI has yet to be explored in the unique context of the timeless vampire character – an archetype where immortality and daring beauty are defining traits, at least on TV.

    If done right, AI could de-age Boreanaz and Marsters, allowing the actors to return as Angel and Spike without breaking continuity or forcing abrupt casting changes.

    In return, this move could influence the vampire genre as a whole – not only bringing TV actors back to beloved roles but, more importantly, allowing them to carry their fan base with them into a new era.

    AI and gender in Hollywood

    Women have been disproportionately affected by AI’s impact on job security, as a 2024 Mercer study highlighted.

    Hollywood still has a gender disparity problem. In 2024, 70% of the top-grossing films had ten or more men in key positions behind the screen, compared with just 8% for women. AI is enhancing this gap, automating roles where women have greater representation (such as background acting and voice work), as well as excluding them from AI development and decision-making.

    Male actors, meanwhile, have seen their job security increased by the technology, as they’re able to retain leading roles in film sequels such as Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023).

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    In the Buffy reboot, led by a now 47-year-old Gellar, we could witness an intriguing power reversal in both cases. If AI is not used, removing Boreanaz and Marsters from their roles, the show could still stand without them. Unlike her male co-stars, Buffy is human, so ageing isn’t a major issue for Gellar and her character. Twenty years later, fans would naturally expect to see her looking visibly older and facing new adventures.

    However, if AI de-aging is used to preserve Angel and Spike as we remember them in their often-sexualised signature look, then Buffy’s vampire lovers would look noticeably younger than her for the first time. This would provide an interesting twist to what film historian Steve Neale has defined as “masculinity as spectacle”, reversing traditional gendered cinematic power dynamics.

    By allowing AI to preserve Angel and Spike as immortal, the reboot could bridge generational and new fans while exploring the latest use of a controversial technology.

    Regardless of the outcome, we know Buffy doesn’t “have time for vendettas. The mission is what matters”. Let’s hope this new show can rise to the challenge and still slay in the 21st century.

    Valentina Signorelli is co-founder of Italian production company Daitona

    – ref. AI vampires could save Buffy fan favourites like Angel and Spike from a reboot recast – https://theconversation.com/ai-vampires-could-save-buffy-fan-favourites-like-angel-and-spike-from-a-reboot-recast-249403

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: A short history of the separation of powers: from Cicero’s Rome to Trump’s America

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vittorio Bufacchi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, University College Cork

    Studies in democracy: Cicero, left, and Donald Trump. Capitoline Museum/Mary Harrsch and EPA-EFE/Will Oliver, CC BY-SA

    In the four weeks since he was inaugurated for his second term as US president, Donald Trump has issued dozens of executive orders – many of which are now the subject of legal challenges on the grounds they exceed his authority under the US constitution. As a result, some will inevitably end up in front of the US Supreme Court.

    What the court rules – and how the Trump administration responds to its judgments – will tell us a great deal whether the separation of powers still works as US founding fathers intended when they drafted the constitution.

    The concept of separation of powers is incorporated into just about every democratic constitution. It rests on the principle of the separation of powers between the three fundamental branches of government: executive, legislature and judiciary.

    It’s what enables the political ecosystem of checks and balances to create the conditions for democracy to exist and freedom to flourish. But if one of the three branches of government dominates the other two, the equilibrium is shattered and democracy collapses.

    We owe this idea of constitutional democracy as a tripartite division of power to an 18th-century French political philosopher, Charles de Montesquieu. He was the author of one of the most influential books to come out of the Enlightenment period, The Spirit of the Laws.

    Published in 1748, this work gradually reshaped every political system in Europe, and had a powerful influence on America’s Founding Fathers. The 1787 US constitution was drafted in the spirit of Montesquieu’s recommendations.

    Modern democracies are more complex than those of the 18th century – and new institutions have developed to keep up with the times. These include specialised tribunals, autonomous regulatory agencies, central banks, audit bodies, ombudsmen, electoral commissions and anti-corruption bodies.

    What all these institutions have in common is that they operate with a considerable degree of independence from the three aforementioned arms of government. In other words, more checks and balances.

    Notwithstanding his immense influence, the idea of a separation of powers at the heart of democracy predates Montesquieu by many centuries. One of the earliest formulations of this idea can be found in Aristotle’s work, the Politics. This includes the argument that “the best constitution is made up of all existing forms”. By this Aristotle meant a mixed government of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

    But it was the Romans who developed a working model of checks and balances. The constitution of the Roman republic was characterised by the separation of powers between the tribune of the plebs, the senate of the patricians, and the elected consuls.

    The consuls held the highest political office, akin to a president or prime minister. But since the Romans did not trust anyone to have too much power, they elected two consuls at a time, for a period of 12 months. Each consul had veto power over the actions of the other consul. Checks and balances.

    The greatest advocate of the Roman republic and its constitutional mechanisms, was the Roman philosopher, lawyer and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero. It was Cicero who inspired Montesquieu’s work – as well as influencing John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the US.

    The Roman republic had lasted for approximately 500 years but came to an end following the violent death of Cicero in 43BC. He had devoted his life resisting authoritarian populists from undermining the Roman republic and establishing themselves as sole despots. His death (on top of the assassination of Julius Ceasar the previous year) are seen as key moments in Rome’s transition from republic to empire.

    Democracy under threat

    Today our democracies are facing the same predicament. In many different parts of the world this simple institutional mechanism has come under increasing attack by individuals hell-bent on curbing the independent power of the judiciary and the legislative.

    In Europe, following in the footsteps of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, the Italian far-right premier Giorgia Meloni has been pushing for constitutional reforms that reinforce the executive branch of government at the expense of the other two branches.

    Checks and balances: the three branches of government.
    TREKPix/Shutterstock

    The assault on the system of checks and balances has also been identified in Washington. The use and abuse of presidential executive orders is an indication of this growing political cancer.

    During his time as 46th US president, from January 2021 to January 2025, Joe Biden signed 162 executive orders – an average of 41 executive orders per year. By comparison, during his first term Donald Trump’s annual average was 55 executive orders. Barack Obama before him was 35.

    In his first 20 days since returning to the White House Donald Trump has already signed 60 executive orders. This has included pardoning some 1,500 people who were involved in the January 6 insurrection at the US capitol.

    But of much greater concern is the Trump administration’s veiled threats to overturn the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court from 1803, Marbury v. Madison, the case that established the principle that the courts are the final arbiters of the law.

    In recent weeks Trump has openly criticised federal judges who have tried to block some of his most executive orders. He’s been supported by his vice-president, J.D. Vance, who has been quoted as saying that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power”.

    Meanwhile the president’s senior advisor, Elon Musk, accused a judge’s order to temporarily block the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency from accessing confidential treasury department data of being “a corrupt judge protecting corruption”.

    So democracy’s delicate balancing act is under serious pressure. If the separation of powers does not hold, and the checks and balances prove to be ineffective, democracy will be threatened.

    The next few months and years will determine whether the rule of law will be displaced by the rule of the strongest. At the moment the odds don’t look good for Cicero, Montesquieu and Madison.

    It takes a brave person to bet on democracy to win this contest, but we live in hope that America will remain the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    Vittorio Bufacchi is affiliated with the Labour Party in Ireland.

    – ref. A short history of the separation of powers: from Cicero’s Rome to Trump’s America – https://theconversation.com/a-short-history-of-the-separation-of-powers-from-ciceros-rome-to-trumps-america-249819

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –