NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Politicians’ attacks on immigrants lack solid evidence: New data set the record straight

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Edward Koning, Associate professor, University of Guelph

    Immigration dominated recent election campaigns in countries that include the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States.

    The subject sparked particularly fierce debates over welfare. While some politicians called for more support for typically economically vulnerable immigrant populations, others argued that welfare systems are already too generous and accommodating to newcomers.

    Unfortunately, many debates on this subject lack solid evidence. A newly launched data set could change that. The data, which provides systematic information on immigrants’ access to social programs across different countries and different time periods, can help ground some of these discussions in empirical reality.

    The data set reveals key insights. One striking observation is that the countries where politicians most frequently complain that immigrants are treated too generously are among the most exclusionary from a comparative perspective.

    It also shows that although most welfare systems were moving towards greater inclusion up until the 2010s, since then social programs in many countries have become more inclusive in some respects but more exclusive in others.

    A new data set for 22 countries

    The data set, called the Immigrant Exclusion from Social Programs Index (IESPI), measures how much immigrants’ access to pensions, health care, unemployment benefits, housing benefits, social assistance and active labour market programs compares to that of native-born citizens.

    The index uses 32 indicators to measure factors like whether immigrants have to have resided in the country for a certain period of time, held a specific type of residence status, or met standards of successful integration before they can access social programs.

    The data covers the years 1990 to 2023 and includes information for 22 countries.

    Complaints about inclusion

    In the United States, President Donald Trump has voiced concerns about immigrants’ welfare access repeatedly, both during his first term and since taking office again this year.

    In last year’s British election, a staple of Rishi Sunak’s campaign was the insistence that immigrants threaten the sustainability of the welfare state.

    On the other side of the North Sea, the political party that won the Dutch elections made the argument that immigrants are “pampered” a central feature of its election platform.

    Ironically, all three of these countries are among the most exclusionary, according to the most recent IESPI data, as the graph below illustrates. (Note that the IESPI is organized such that a value of 0 is maximally inclusionary and 100 is maximally exclusionary.)

    Inclusionary trends have ended

    A second observation is that the era of social welfare systems becoming more inclusive for immigrants has ended.

    From 1990 until the 2010s, most western welfare systems were removing barriers for immigrant access to social programs. But since then, levels of immigrant welfare exclusion have not changed dramatically over time.

    Closer inspection shows that this picture of stability since the 2010s hides negative trends in different social programs.

    On the one hand, health-care programs and active labour market policies have gradually become more inclusionary. More and more countries have been making health-care services accessible for vulnerable immigrant populations, and rolling out targeted programs to improve newcomers’ chances on the labour market.

    On the other hand, social assistance policies have generally become more exclusionary over time. Many countries have intensified restrictions for recent arrivals, migrants without permanent residence status and migrants who cannot demonstrate successful integration.

    Large differences in historical trajectories

    When we look beyond aggregate trends, we also note very different trajectories in different countries.

    In some countries (Austria, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Malta, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain), social programs have become consistently more inclusionary.

    Other countries (Canada, Luxembourg and Sweden) have also undergone an inclusionary development, although at a more modest pace of change.

    In a third set of countries (Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Switzerland), policies initially became more inclusionary but this trend was halted or reversed around 2010. The social programs of three other countries (the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States), finally, have consistently become more exclusionary over time.

    These comparisons within the IESPI data set hopefully enable us to make sense of the frequently charged nature of discussions about immigrants’ access to social programs.

    Most obviously, they show we should be cautious when listening to some of the politicians who are most critical of immigrant welfare access, like Donald Trump, Rishi Sunak and Geert Wilders.

    If their arguments that exclusionary reforms in their countries are nothing but reasonable adjustments to overly generous approaches ever had any merit, that merit is quickly evaporating.

    Edward Koning received funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada to collect the data for this project.

    – ref. Politicians’ attacks on immigrants lack solid evidence: New data set the record straight – https://theconversation.com/politicians-attacks-on-immigrants-lack-solid-evidence-new-data-set-the-record-straight-251853

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: With Hooters on the verge of bankruptcy, a psychologist reflects on her time spent studying the servers who work there

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Dawn Szymanski, Professor of Psychology, University of Tennessee

    Servers told researchers that they were instructed to make their male customers feel special. Brian Brainerd/The Denver Post via Getty Images

    In 1983, six businessmen got together and opened the first Hooters restaurant in Clearwater, Florida. Hooters of America LLC quickly became a restaurant chain success story.

    With its scantily clad servers and signature breaded wings, the chain sells sex appeal in addition to food – or as one of the company’s mottos puts it: “You can sell the sizzle, but you have to deliver the steak.” It inspired a niche restaurant genre called “breastaurants,” with eateries such as the Tilted Kilt Pub & Eatery and Twin Peaks replicating Hooters’ busty business model.

    A decade ago, business was booming for breastaurant chains, with these companies experiencing record sales growth.

    Today it’s a different story. Declining sales, rising costs and a large debt burden of approximately US$300 million have threatened Hooters’ long-term outlook. In summer 2024, the chain closed over 40 of its restaurants across the U.S. In February 2025, Bloomberg reported that the company was on the verge of filing for bankruptcy.

    Hooters isn’t necessarily going away for good. But it’s certainly looking like there will be fewer opportunities for women to work as “Hooters Girls” – and for customers to ogle at them.

    As a psychologist, I was originally interested in studying servers at breastaurants because I could sense an interesting dynamic at play. On the one hand, it can feel good to be complimented for your looks. On the other hand, I also wondered whether constantly being critiqued might eventually wear these servers down.

    So my research team and I decided to study what it was like to work in places like Hooters.

    In a series of studies, here’s what we found.

    Concocting a male fantasyland

    More so than most restaurants, managers at breastaurants like Hooters seek to strictly regulate how their employees look and act.

    For one of our studies, we interviewed 11 women who worked in breastaurants.

    Several of them said that they were told to be “camera ready” at all times.

    One described being given a booklet with exacting standards outlining her expected appearance, down to “nails, hair, makeup, brushing your teeth, wearing deodorant.” She had to promise to stay the same weight and height, wear makeup every shift and not change her hairstyle.

    Beyond a carefully constructed physical appearance, the servers relayed that they were also expected to be confident, cheerful, charming, outgoing and emotionally steeled. They were instructed to make male customers feel special, to be their “personal cheerleaders,” as one interviewee put it, and to never challenge them.

    Suffice it say, these demands can be unrealistic – and many of the servers we interviewed described becoming emotionally drained and eventually souring on the role.

    ‘The girls are a dime a dozen’

    It probably won’t come as a surprise that Hooters servers often encounter lewd remarks, sexual advances and other forms of sexual harassment from customers.

    But because their managers often tolerate this behavior from customers, it created the added burden of what psychologists call “double-binds” – situations where contradictory messages make it impossible to respond properly.

    For example, say a regular customer who’s a generous tipper decides to proposition a server. Now she’s in a predicament. She’s been instructed to make customers feel special. And he’s already left a big tip, in addition to being a regular. But she also feels creeped out, and his advances make her feel worthless. Should she push back?

    GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole shakes hands with Hooters employees after a campaign rally in Jacksonville, Fla., in 1996.
    J. David Ake/AFP via Getty Images

    You might assume that managers, aware that their scantily clad employees would be more likely to face harassment, would try to set boundaries and throw out customers who treated servers poorly. But we found that waitresses at breastaurants have less support from both management and their co-workers than servers at other restaurants.

    “Unfortunately, the girls are a dime a dozen, and that’s how they’re treated,” a former server and corporate trainer at a breastaurant explained.

    The lack of co-worker support might also come as a surprise. Rather than standing in solidarity, the servers tended to compete for favoritism, better shifts and raises from their bosses. Gossiping, name-calling and scapegoating were commonplace.

    The psychological toll

    My research team also wanted to learn more about the specific emotional and psychological costs of working in these types of environments.

    Psychologists Barbara Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Robert have found that mental health problems that disproportionately affect women often coincide with sexual objectification.

    So we weren’t surprised to find that servers working in sexually objectifying restaurant environments, such as Hooters and Twin Peaks, reported more symptoms of depression, anxiety and disordered eating than those working in other restaurants. In addition, they wanted to be thinner, were more likely to monitor their weight and appearance, and were more dissatisfied with their bodies. Hooters didn’t reply to a request for comment on this story.

    Why are women drawn to the job?

    Given our findings, you might wonder why any women would choose to work in places like Hooters in the first place.

    The women we interviewed said that they sought work in breastaurants to make more money and have more flexibility.

    A number of servers in one of our studies noted that they could make more money this way than waitressing at a regular restaurant or in other “real” jobs.

    For example, one of the servers we interviewed used to work at a more run-of-the-mill restaurant.

    “It was OK, I made OK money,” she told us. “But working at Hooters … I’ve walked out with hundreds of dollars in one shift.”

    All the women we interviewed were in college or were mothers. So they enjoyed the high degree of flexibility in their work schedule that breastaurants provided.

    Finally, several of them had previously experienced objectification while growing up, or they’d participated in activities centered on physical appearance, such as beauty pageants and cheerleading. This likely contributed to their decision to work at a Hooters or one of its competitors: They’d been objectified as adolescents, and so they found themselves drawn to these kinds of setting as adults.

    Even so, our research suggests that the financial rewards and flexibility of working in breastaurants probably aren’t worth the potential psychological costs.

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

    – ref. With Hooters on the verge of bankruptcy, a psychologist reflects on her time spent studying the servers who work there – https://theconversation.com/with-hooters-on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy-a-psychologist-reflects-on-her-time-spent-studying-the-servers-who-work-there-251217

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico could spell trouble for distilled spirits

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrew Muhammad, Professor of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee

    If all the tariff drama in the news lately has you reaching for a stiff drink, you’re not alone. Unfortunately, those same tariffs might make it harder to get your hands on your favorite brand of tequila.

    In early March 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump levied import tariffs of 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, following through on a promise he made back in November 2024. While he later partially reversed course, suspending tariffs on some goods, tensions remain high. Mexico is largely holding off on retaliation, but Canada quickly fired back with counter-tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. products.

    These trade tensions spell trouble for numerous industries, including the booming spirits market. Canada and Mexico – two of the top U.S. trading partners – accounted for nearly half of the US$12 billion in distilled spirits the U.S. imported in 2024.

    As an agricultural economist, I’ve analyzed how a 25% tariff could affect tequila, whiskey and other distilled spirits – and the results weren’t pretty. I found that these tariffs would cost distilled spirit importers over $1 billion in lost trade, with tequila alone taking a more than $800 million hit.

    Americans’ thirst for imported liquor

    The U.S. imports far more distilled spirits than it exports – five times as much by value, as of 2024.

    Since 2000, U.S. imports of distilled spirits have surged by more than 300%, driven largely by the explosive rise in tequila consumption. Between 2000 and 2024, tequila imports rose by 1,400%, skyrocketing from $350 million to $5.4 billion.

    While imports of whiskey, liqueurs, vodka and brandy also grew, none matched tequila’s explosive rise. Tequila now represents 45% of all spirits imported into the U.S., up from 12% in 2000.

    Not surprisingly, 99% of tequila and mezcal is imported from Mexico, making it the leading foreign supplier of distilled spirits to the United States. Meanwhile, Canada has supplied between 4% and 6% of U.S. spirits imports over the past two decades, primarily whiskey and liqueurs.

    Since distilled spirits are classified as agricultural products, their rising imports have significantly contributed to the U.S. agricultural trade deficit. However, this isn’t necessarily a problem. Imports help meet demand from U.S. consumers, generate value-added opportunities for U.S. companies, and support economic activity in bars, liquor stores, restaurants and beyond.

    A 25% tariff on Mexican goods is a 25% tax on tequila

    In my study, published in February in the peer-reviewed journal Agribusiness and in a follow-up policy brief, I found that 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada could reduce imports of distilled spirits by $1.2 billion. This loss exceeds the total amount of tax revenue those tariffs can expected to bring in.

    Unsurprisingly, tequila imports would be the hardest hit, falling by $810 million. I found that the tariff revenue from tequila – $910 million – could actually exceed the corresponding fall in imports. That’s because demand for tequila, like most alcoholic beverages, is what economists call “inelastic,” meaning that when prices rise, consumers are unlikely to change their purchasing decisions by very much.

    However, it would be a mistake to consider tequila in isolation. When I factored in other notable decreases, such as a $100 million drop in whiskey imports, I found that the value of total trade losses, in the form of decreased imports, would outweigh the total tariff revenue. I also found that no product category would come out ahead.

    In fact, even products like vodka, which are mostly exempt from these tariffs, would be indirectly affected. This is because tariffs can increase the overall cost of importing, leading businesses to reduce all imports, tariffed or otherwise. My research suggests that this “trade destruction” effect, to use an economics term, will be quite significant.

    A new era of tariffs

    The Trump administration has argued that tariffs will generate a lot of money for the federal government. But my research suggests those gains may not outweigh the economic costs to businesses and consumers.

    Contrary to common belief, trade losses don’t just affect exporting countries. Domestic consumers also face higher prices and fewer choices – hurting their overall economic welfare. Reducing imports also affects U.S. businesses involved in marketing, distribution and sales.

    Trade is more complex than a simple formula of “exports good, imports bad.” Research makes it clear that tariffs have negative consequences, including higher consumer prices, reduced product availability and downstream economic disruption. Policymakers would be wise to take those effects seriously. Otherwise, they might find themselves with a serious economic hangover.

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

    – ref. Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico could spell trouble for distilled spirits – https://theconversation.com/trumps-tariffs-on-canada-and-mexico-could-spell-trouble-for-distilled-spirits-251583

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Mississippi’s education miracle: A model for global literacy reform

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Harry Anthony Patrinos, Professor of Education Policy, University of Arkansas

    Mississippi’s reforms have led to significant gains in reading and math, despite the state being one of the lowest spenders per pupil in the U.S. Klaus Vedfelt/Getty Images

    In a surprising turnaround, Mississippi, once ranked near the bottom of U.S. education standings, has dramatically improved its student literacy rates.

    As of 2023, the state ranks among the top 20 for fourth grade reading, a significant leap from its 49th-place ranking in 2013. This transformation was driven by evidence-based policy reforms focused on early literacy and teacher development.

    The rest of the country might want to take note.

    That’s because Mississippi’s success offers a proven solution to the reading literacy crisis facing many states – a clear road map for closing early literacy gaps and improving reading outcomes nationwide.

    As an expert on the economics of education, I believe the learning crisis is not just an educational issue. It’s also economic.

    When students struggle, their academic performance declines. And that leads to lower test scores. Research shows that these declining scores are closely linked to reduced economic growth, as a less educated workforce hampers productivity and innovation.

    The Mississippi approach

    In 2013, Mississippi implemented a multifaceted strategy for enhancing kindergarten to third grade literacy. The Literacy-Based Promotion Act focuses on early literacy and teacher development. It includes teacher training in proven reading instruction methods and teacher coaching.

    Relying on federally supported research from the Institute of Education Science, the state invested in phonics, fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension. The law provided K-3 teachers with training and support to help students master reading by the end of third grade.

    It includes provisions for reading coaches, parent communication, individual reading plans and other supportive measures. It also includes targeted support for struggling readers. Students repeat the third grade if they fail to meet reading standards.

    The state also aligned its test to the NAEP, or National Assessment of Educational Progress, something which not all states do. Often referred to as “The Nation’s Report Card,” the NAEP is a nationwide assessment that measures student performance in various subjects.

    Mississippi’s reforms have led to significant gains in reading and math, with fourth graders improving on national assessments.

    I believe this is extremely important. That’s because early reading is a foundational skill that helps develop the ability to read at grade level by the end of third grade. It also leads to general academic success, graduating from high school prepared for college, and becoming productive adults less likely to fall into poverty.

    Research by Noah Spencer, an economics doctoral student at the University of Toronto, shows that the Mississippi law boosted scores.

    Students exposed to it from kindergarten to the third grade gained a 0.25 standard deviation improvement in reading scores. That is roughly equivalent to one year of academic progress in reading, according to educational benchmarks. This gain reflects significant strides in students’ literacy development over the course of a school year.

    Another study has found an even greater impact attributed to grade retention in the third grade – it led to a huge increase in learning in English Language Arts by the sixth grade.

    But the Mississippi law is not just about retention. Spencer found that grade retention explains only about 22% of the treatment effect. The rest is presumably due to the other components of the measure – namely, teacher training and coaching.

    Other previous research supports these results across the country.

    Adopting an early literacy policy improves elementary students’ reading achievement on important student assessments, with third grade retention and instructional support substantially enhancing English learners’ skills. The policy also increases test scores for students’ younger siblings, although it is not clear why.

    Moreover, third grade retention programs immediately boost English Language Arts and math achievements into middle school without disciplinary incidents or negatively impacting student attendance.

    These changes were achieved despite Mississippi being one of the lowest spenders per pupil in the U.S., proving that strategic investments in teacher development and early literacy can yield impressive results even with limited resources.

    The global learning crisis

    Mississippi’s success is timely. Millions of children globally struggle to read by age 10. It’s a crisis that has worsened after the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Mississippi’s early literacy interventions show lasting impact and offer a potential solution for other regions facing similar challenges.

    In 2024, only 31% of U.S. fourth grade students were proficient or above in reading, according to the NAEP, while 40% were below basic. Reading scores for fourth and eighth graders also dropped by five points compared with 2019, with averages lower than any year since 2005.

    In 2013, Mississippi ranked 49th in fourth grade reading scores.
    Klaus Vedfelt/Getty Images

    Mississippi’s literacy program provides a learning gain equal to a year of schooling. The program costs US$15 million annually – 0.2% of the state budget in 2023 – and $32 per student.

    The learning gain associated with the Mississippi program is equal to about an extra quarter of a year. Since each year of schooling raises earnings by about 9%, then a quarter-year gain means that Mississippi students benefiting from the program will increase future earnings by 2.25% a year.

    Based on typical high school graduate earnings, the average student can expect to earn an extra $1,000 per year for the rest of their life.

    That is, for every dollar Mississippi spends, the state gains about $32 in additional lifetime earnings, offering substantial long-term economic benefits compared with the initial cost.

    The Mississippi literacy project focuses on teaching at the right level, which focuses on assessing children’s actual learning levels and then tailoring instruction to meet them, rather than strictly following age- or grade-level curriculum.

    Teaching at the right level and a scripted lessons plan are among the most effective strategies to address the global learning crisis. After the World Bank reviewed over 150 education programs in 2020, nearly half showed no learning benefit.

    I believe Mississippi’s progress, despite being the second-poorest state, can serve as a wake-up call.

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

    – ref. Mississippi’s education miracle: A model for global literacy reform – https://theconversation.com/mississippis-education-miracle-a-model-for-global-literacy-reform-251895

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From Greenland to Fort Bragg, America is caught in a name game where place names become political tools

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Seth T. Kannarr, PhD Candidate in Geography, University of Tennessee

    President Donald Trump re-renamed Denali as Mount McKinley in 2025. Tim Rains/National Park Service, CC BY

    Place names are more than just labels on a map. They influence how people learn about the world around them and perceive their place in it.

    Names can send messages and suggest what is and isn’t valued in society. And the way that they are changed over time can signal cultural shifts.

    The United States is in the midst of a place-renaming moment. From the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, to the return of Forts Bragg and Benning and the newly re-renamed Mount McKinley in Alaska’s Denali National Park, we are witnessing a consequential shift in the politics of place naming.

    This sudden rewriting of the nation’s map – done to “restore American greatness,” according to President Donald Trump’s executive order that made some of them official – is part of a name game that recognizes place names as powerful brands and political tools.

    In our research on place naming, we explore how this “name game” is used to assert control over shared symbols and embed subtle and not-so-subtle messages in the landscape.

    As geography teachers and researchers, we also recognize the educational and emotional impact the name game can have on the public.

    Place names can have psychological effects

    Renaming a place is always an act of power.

    People in power have long used place naming to claim control over the identity of the place, bolster their reputations, retaliate against opponents and achieve political goals.

    These moves can have strong psychological effects, particularly when the name evokes something threatening. Changing a place name can fundamentally shift how people view, relate to or feel that they belong within that place.

    In Shenandoah County, Virginia, students at two schools originally named for Confederate generals have been on an emotional roller coaster of name changes in recent years. The schools were renamed Mountain View and Honey Run in 2020 amid the national uproar over the murder of George Floyd, a Black man killed by a police officer in Minneapolis.

    Four years later, the local school board reinstated the original Confederate names after conservatives took control of the board.

    One Black eighth grader at Mountain View High School — now re-renamed Stonewall Jackson High School — testified at a board meeting about how the planned change would affect her:

    “I would have to represent a man that fought for my ancestors to be slaves. If this board decides to restore the names, I would not feel like I was valued and respected,” she said. The board still approved the change, 5-1.

    Even outside of schools, place names operate as a “hidden curriculum.” They provide narratives to the public about how the community or nation sees itself – as well as whose histories and perspectives it considers important or worthy of public attention.

    Place names affect how people perceive, experience and emotionally connect to their surroundings in both conscious and subconscious ways. Psychologists, sociologists and geographers have explored how this sense of place manifests itself into the psyche, creating either attachment or aversion to place, whether it’s a school, mountain or park.

    A tale of two forts

    Renaming places can rally a leader’s supporters through rebranding.

    Trump’s orders to restore the names Fort Bragg and Fort Benning, both originally named for Confederate generals, illustrate this effect. The names were changed to Fort Liberty and Fort Moore in 2023 after Congress passed a law banning the use of Confederate names for federal installations.

    Veterans and other guests posed in 2023 next to a newly unveiled sign for Fort Moore, named for Lt. Gen. Harold ‘Hal’ Moore, who served in Vietnam, and his wife, Julia Moore. In 2025, President Donald Trump reverted the name back to Fort Benning.
    Cheney Orr/AFP via Getty Images

    Trump made a campaign promise to his followers to “bring back the name” of Fort Bragg if reelected.

    To get around the federal ban, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth identified two unrelated decorated Army veterans with the same last names — Bragg and Benning — but without any Confederate connections, to honor instead.

    Call it a sleight of hand or a stroke of genius if you’d like, this tactic allowed the Department of Defense to revive politically charged names without violating the law.

    A soldier walks beside a sign that was unveiled when Fort Liberty was rededicated as Fort Bragg during a ceremony on base on March 7, 2025.
    AP Photo/Chris Seward

    The restoration of the names Bragg and Benning may feel like a symbolic homecoming for those who resisted the original name change or have emotional ties to the names through their memories of living and serving on the base, rather than a connection to the specific namesakes.

    However, the names are still reminders of the military bases’ original association with defenders of slavery.

    The place-renaming game

    A wave of place-name changes during the Obama and Biden administrations focused on removing offensive or derogatory place names and recognizing Indigenous names.

    For example, Clingmans Dome, the highest peak in the Great Smoky Mountains, was renamed to Kuwohi in September 2024, shifting the name from a Confederate general to a Cherokee word meaning “the mulberry place.”

    Under the Trump administration, however, place-name changes are being advanced explicitly to push back against reform efforts, part of a broader assault on what Trump calls “woke culture.”

    The view from a lookout tower on Kuwohi, formerly known as Clingmans Dome, in the Great Smoky Mountains.
    National Park Service



    Read more:
    From Confederate general to Cherokee heritage: Why returning the name Kuwohi to the Great Smoky Mountains matters

    President Barack Obama changed Alaska’s Mount McKinley to Denali in 2015 to acknowledge Indigenous heritage and a long-standing name for the mountain. Officials in Alaska had requested the name change to Denali years earlier and supported the name change in 2015.

    Trump, on his first day in office in January 2025, moved to rename Denali back to Mount McKinley, over the opposition of Republican politicians in Alaska. The state Legislature passed a resolution a few days later asking Trump to reconsider.

    Georgia Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter made a recent legislative proposal to rename Greenland as “Red, White, and Blueland” in support of Trump’s expansionist desire to purchase the island, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark.

    Danish officials and Greenlanders saw Carter’s absurd proposal as insulting and damaging to diplomatic relations. It is not the first time that place renaming has been used as a form of symbolic insult in international relations.

    Renaming the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America might have initially seemed improbable, but it is already reflected in common navigation apps.

    Google Maps displays the name ‘Gulf of America’ instead of Gulf of Mexico in March 2025.
    Google INEGI



    Read more:
    Yes, Trump can rename the Gulf of Mexico – just not for everyone. Here’s how it works

    A better way to choose place names

    When leaders rename a place in an abrupt, unilateral fashion — often for ideological reasons — they risk alienating communities that deeply connect with those names as a form of memory, identity and place attachment.

    A better alternative, in our view, would be to make renaming shared landscapes participatory, with opportunities for meaningful public involvement in the renaming process.

    This approach does not avoid name changes, but it suggests the changes should respond to the social and psychological needs of communities and the evolving cultural identity of places — and not simply be used to score political points.

    Instead, encouraging public participation — such as through landscape impact assessments and critical audits that take the needs of affected communities seriously — can cultivate a sense of shared ownership in the decision that may give those names more staying power.

    The latest place renamings are already affecting the classroom experience. Students are not just memorizing new place labels, but they are also being asked to reevaluate the meaning of those places and their own relationship with the nation and the world.

    As history has shown around the world, one of the major downsides of leaders imposing name changes is that the names can be easily replaced as soon as the next regime takes power. The result can be a never-ending name game.

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

    – ref. From Greenland to Fort Bragg, America is caught in a name game where place names become political tools – https://theconversation.com/from-greenland-to-fort-bragg-america-is-caught-in-a-name-game-where-place-names-become-political-tools-251201

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Medetomidine is replacing xylazine in Philly street fentanyl − creating new hurdles for health care providers and drug users

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kory London, Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University

    Medetomidine is now a key ingredient in street fentanyl sold in Philly. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    Philadelphia’s street opioid supply – or “dope” market – is constantly changing. As health care workers and researchers who care for people who use drugs in our community, we have witnessed these shifts firsthand.

    New adulterants are frequently added to the mix. They bring additional and often uncertain risks for people who use drugs, and new challenges for the health care providers and systems who treat them.

    The latest adulterant to dominate the supply is medetomidine.

    What is medetomodine?

    Medetomidine, pronounced meh-deh-TOH-muh-deen, is a drug used in veterinary medicine for sedation, muscle relaxation and pain relief, often during surgery. It is an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist, which essentially means it works by slowing the release of adrenaline in the brain and body.

    In May 2024, the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s Office began testing for medetomidine in people who died from fatal overdoses. By the end of the year, 46 of the deceased had tested positive for the substance, in addition to fentanyl and other known chemicals.

    In fact, medetomidine is quickly becoming more common in Philadelphia’s street opioid supply than even xylazine, a non-FDA-approved sedative linked to skin ulceration, chronic wounds and amputation.

    Xylazine was first detected in Philadelphia street drugs in 2006 and became increasingly common starting in 2015. By early 2023, xylazine was detected in 98% of tested dope samples in the city.

    However, its presence is steadily dropping, according to local drug-checking program data. The Philadelphia Department of Public Health says medetomidine has emerged as a primary adulterant and is now twice as common as xylazine in drug-checked samples.

    Recent studies show even more unusual substances entering the street fentanyl supply, such as the industrial solvent BTMPS.

    At the same time, hospital and behavioral health providers are reporting more common presentations of severe withdrawal symptoms among people who use drugs in Philadelphia.

    Risks of medetomidine

    While medetomidine’s sedating effects are similar in mechanism to xylazine, it is upward of 10-20 times more potent. It suppresses brain signals in the central nervous system, leading to deep sedation.

    Since medetomidine is so powerful and does not act on opioid receptors, a person who overdoses on it often does not respond to the opioid-reversal drug naloxone, which goes by the brand name Narcan, in the manner we commonly expect from people who appear to have overdosed on opioids.

    When patients overdose on a combination of opioids and medetomidine, providing naloxone will help individuals start breathing again but does not reverse the sedation caused by the medetomidine.

    From our clinical experience, after patients start to breathe normally, providing additional doses of naloxone does not seem to help and even risks prompting opioid withdrawal symptoms.

    Additionally, medetomidine presents serious clinical challenges for health care workers treating patients in withdrawal. These patients often experience symptoms such as rapid heart rate, severe spikes in blood pressure, restlessness, disorientation and confusion, and severe vomiting. While many of these symptoms were similar, if less intense, for those withdrawing from opioids and xylazine, the number of patients we are seeing is unprecedented – as is the severity of their symptoms.

    While published data on humans’ withdrawal from medetomidine is limited, clinicians are drawing comparisons to dexmedetomidine, a related drug used in humans that has shown similar features when withdrawn too quickly.

    Researchers and clinicians in Philadelphia’s hospitals, including us at Thomas Jefferson University, are analyzing emerging clinical data. This data suggests that existing protocols that effectively controlled withdrawal symptoms in the era when xylazine was common are no longer adequate in the era of medetomidine. New protocols have been developed based on the guidance of local experts and are being tested.

    When patients overdose on a combination of opioids and medetomidine, providing naloxone can help individuals start breathing again but does not reverse the sedation caused by the medetomidine.
    AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    Approaches to drug testing

    The rise in severe withdrawal symptoms has prompted expanded testing for adulterants such as medetomidine in Jefferson’s emergency departments.

    Currently, drug testing involves two primary approaches. Qualitative analysis determines the presence or absence of substances. For example, fentanyl and xylazine test strips are commonly used by harm reduction groups and people who use drugs. Unfortunately, they can be unreliable and prone to user error, expiration, misinterpretation and false positives or negatives. This technology is also commonly used in urine drug-testing kits sold over the counter.

    Quantitative analysis, on the other hand, is a more sophisticated approach to drug testing. It uses complex technology such as liquid-phase chromatography and mass spectrometry to separate the individual components of a sample and determine their concentration. This form of testing is more expensive and requires specialized equipment and analysts to perform the tests and interpret the results.

    Hospitals in the city have begun selectively testing urine and blood samples from patients who present with suspected medetomidine exposure. The labs are looking for the presence of certain drugs and their related byproducts, and also trying to identify distinct concentrations that might be associated with overdose, intoxication and withdrawal.

    Implications for public health

    We believe Philadelphians should be aware of these recent changes in the street drug supply and how people in their communities may react to exposure to medetomidine.

    Naloxone is still recommended for a person showing signs of opioid overdose – such as excess sedation, shallow or absent breathing and small pupils. Narcan is freely available at pharmacies around the city. But if the patient starts breathing but does not immediately wake up, additional doses of naloxone should be avoided.

    As always, contact 911 for expert assistance and to get patients to an emergency department to complete their care.

    Patients who use large amounts of drugs may suffer from severe withdrawal symptoms. Typical medications given to those in opioid withdrawal, such as buprenorphine or methadone, may not be sufficient to treat this constellation of symptoms. Even medications and regimens tailored for xylazine may not be effective.

    Patients with severe withdrawal symptoms need to be seen in the emergency department, given the risk of undertreating this emerging condition.

    Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

    Kory London receives funding from The Sheller Family Foundation.

    Karen Alexander receives funding from the National Institutes on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

    – ref. Medetomidine is replacing xylazine in Philly street fentanyl − creating new hurdles for health care providers and drug users – https://theconversation.com/medetomidine-is-replacing-xylazine-in-philly-street-fentanyl-creating-new-hurdles-for-health-care-providers-and-drug-users-251753

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US swing toward autocracy doesn’t have to be permanent – but swinging back to democracy requires vigilance, stamina and elections

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer Victor, Associate Professor of Political Science, George Mason University

    The United States is no longer a democracy.

    At least, that’s the verdict of one nonprofit, the Center for Systemic Peace, which measures regime qualities of countries worldwide based on the competitiveness and integrity of their elections, limits to executive authority and other factors.

    “The USA is no longer considered a democracy and lies at the cusp of autocracy,” the group’s 2025 report read.

    It calls Donald Trump’s second inauguration following a raft of criminal indictments and convictions, combined with the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2024 granting of sweeping presidential immunity, a “presidential coup.”

    Generally, only scholars pay attention to this kind of technical index. This year, however, many people are calling out the erosion of U.S. democracy.

    Political scientists like myself can see that in the guise of government “efficiency,” the Trump administration is sabotaging the rule of law to such an extent that authoritarianism is taking hold in America.

    How long might this situation last?

    US no longer a democracy?

    The term “political regime” refers to either the person or people who hold power, or to a classification of government, including in a democracy.

    Since the mid-1960s, when the U.S. expanded voting rights to include its Black citizens, historians and political scientists have generally classified the U.S. as having a democratic regime. That means the government holds free and fair elections, embraces universal voting rights, protects civil liberties and obeys the law.

    All of these areas have significantly degraded in the U.S. over the last few decades due to partisan polarization and political extremism. Now, the rule of law is under attack, too.

    Trump’s unprecedented use of nearly 100 executive orders in the first two months of his presidency aims to enact a vast policy agenda by decree. For comparison, President Joe Biden issued 162 executive orders over four years.

    This is not what the founders had in mind: Congress is the constitutional route for policy-making. Skirting it threatens democracy, as do the issues Trump’s orders address. From attempting to deny citizenship through birthright to abolishing the U.S. Department of Education, Trump is attacking both the U.S. Constitution and Congress. His administration has even defied judges who order it to stop.

    All of this challenges the rule of law – that is, the idea that everyone, including those in power, must follow the same laws.

    When things get this bad, can a country recover?

    Autocrats can be beaten

    Based on my research, the short answer is yes – eventually.

    When a political party that does not honor democratic institutions or heed critical democratic norms takes power, political scientists expect the government to shift toward autocratic rule. That means restricting civil liberties, quashing dissent and undermining the rule of law.

    This is happening right now in the U.S.

    The Trump administration is challenging broadcasters for their election coverage and banning speech that does not conform to its gender ideology. It’s flagrantly violating the Constitution. And it’s eliminating federal funding for universities and research centers that oppose its actions.

    However, as long as a country has a robust opposition and elections that offer real opportunities for alternative parties to win office, the regime shift is not necessarily permanent.

    Take Brazil, for example.

    Its 2022 election ousted President Jair Bolsonaro, leader of an autocratic regime that had attacked the Brazilian media, judiciary and legislature. Bolsonaro claimed his loss to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was fraudulent, and in January 2023 his supporters attacked the nation’s capital. Since then, Bolsonaro has been charged with plotting a coup and barred from seeking office until 2030.

    Brazilian voters and the courts stemmed the country’s autocratic slide and returned it to a democratic regime.

    Polarization swings the pendulum

    Today the American public is deeply divided and dissatisfied with how U.S. democracy works. This polarization translates into presidential elections that are narrowly won.

    According to the American Presidency Project at the University of California Santa Barbara, which measures presidential margins of victory by subtracting the electoral vote percentage from the popular vote percentage for each election, the average margin of victory in presidential elections between 1932 and 2000 was 25 points. Since 2000, it has been 7.8 points.

    Moreover, since 1948, every time the White House changed hands after an election, it flipped parties as well, with one exception in 1988. Political scientists refer to this back-and-forth as “thermostatic shifting.” In other words, the electorate regularly sours on the status quo and aims to adjust the thermostat to another temperature – or political party.

    When a party that more strongly favors democratic principles takes power, the U.S. more firmly adheres to democratic institutions and norms. This was essentially Biden’s winning pitch to voters in 2020.

    Trump’s return to the White House despite two impeachments and a criminal conviction on 34 felony charges marked another pendulum swing – this time, back in the direction of authoritarianism.

    The U.S. political pendulum has been singing back and forth like this since at least 2016, with Trump’s first win. I expect the oscillation to continue.

    A kind of equilibrium

    The risk, of course, is that a ruling authoritarian-leaning party abuses its power to ensure that the opposition can never again win. This has happened in recent decades in Hungary, Turkey and Venezuela, to name a few.

    There are good reasons to believe that a permanent slide into autocracy is harder in the U.S. than in those countries.

    The U.S. has a robust and wealthy network of civil society organizations, which are well versed in exercising their civil liberties. Its decentralized federalist structure is harder for any one person or party to seize. U.S. elections for example, are run by state and local governments, not the federal government. This makes its election systems more resilient than more centralized election systems.

    At the moment, I see no reason to fear that the U.S. will fail to hold free and fair elections in 2026 or 2028.

    For the time being, then, the U.S. is in what I call a “pendular equilibrium.” Parties trade majority control as voters react to extremism, shifting the regime from more autocratic to more democratic depending on who is in power.

    The effect is a stable outcome of sorts – not a static stability but a dynamic stability. Despite the day-to-day chaos, there is balance over time in the predictable shift back and forth.

    When the pendulum stops swinging

    Until, that is, some other force comes along to disrupt the pattern.

    This might be a force more toward fascism that restricts elections to the point of futility, as in Venezuela and Russia. Or the equilibrium could be thrown off by a democratic resurgence, in the model of Brazil or Poland.

    Even just maintaining the pendular equilibrium to conserve some manner of democratic regime will require those who oppose authoritarianism to boldly insist on political leaders who value democratic principles: fair elections, voting rights, civil liberties and rule of law.

    Dangerously, many Americans won’t notice the end of democracy as it happens. As the political scientist Tom Pepinksy writes, life in authoritarian states is mostly boring and tolerable.

    For those who pay attention, the frequency and seriousness of lawless actions can nonetheless make it difficult to sustain an organized opposition.

    Until and unless the U.S. nurtures and elects political movements and leaders who make lasting democratic changes, I believe the country will continue to lurch back and forth in its pendulum swing.

    Jennifer Victor serves as the Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of OpenSecrets, a non-partisan, non-profit. This is an unpaid position.

    – ref. US swing toward autocracy doesn’t have to be permanent – but swinging back to democracy requires vigilance, stamina and elections – https://theconversation.com/us-swing-toward-autocracy-doesnt-have-to-be-permanent-but-swinging-back-to-democracy-requires-vigilance-stamina-and-elections-250383

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Forget booing the anthem, Canada must employ strategic communications to fight Trump’s lies

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Matthew Hefler, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Statecraft and Strategic Communication, Stockholm School of Economics

    Since his return to office, United States President Donald Trump has launched a trade war on Canada. The White House has twice set deadlines for the imposition of sweeping 25 pre cent tariffs — and twice pulled back.

    Trump has also threatened to use “economic force” to compel Canada to become the 51st state, remarks that are a focal point of the ongoing federal election campaign.

    Canadians are offended. They’ve voiced this displeasure, with Canadian sports fans continuing to boo the American anthem at recent events.

    This might be counterproductive.

    Trump says Canada is ‘nasty’

    In this trade war, Canada faces more than tariffs: it’s confronting a communications effort by the president to paint Canadians as mean, disrespectful and “nasty.”

    Trump’s most consistent line is that Canadians are “not fair,” “very abusive” and taking advantage of the U.S. on trade.

    Regardless of the truth, the president repeats these allegations over and over and over again.

    The repetition is the point — it’s an important practice in strategic communications or what’s known as StratCom, the use of communication to achieve objectives.

    The repetition is key to Trump’s StratCom — it’s a way of making his message stick. Hard as it is for Canadians to believe this, there’s a danger of this “nasty Canadian” narrative taking hold south of the border.

    Take it from a communications expert who often works in the U.S. and Europe: not everyone is as well-versed on the dispute as Canadians are. Even actions like booing the American anthem risk reinforcing Trump’s slurs against Canada.

    Canada must devise its own strategy to counter Trump’s message and remind Americans — and the world — that Canada trades on fair terms. By dampening American support for the president’s trade war, this StratCom effort could actually help protect the Canada-U.S. relationship for the long term.

    Creating false counter-narratives

    Trump has long mastered the art of swapping one narrative with a preferred alternative. This tactic has arguably helped save his political career.

    For millions of Americans, the president turned Russian interference in the 2016 election into the “Russia Hoax” — something he raised as recently as the infamous Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

    Rather than concede the 2020 election, Trump and his allies adopted the mantra “Stop the Steal.” And in a most striking StratCom effort, Trump and supporters recast the events of Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol into “a day of love.” Trump also issued a blanket pardon of all those convicted over the attack.

    These are astounding examples of strategic communications, whatever we might think of the president’s honesty or his objectives.

    Every time Trump repeats claims that Canada is taking advantage of the U.S., that narrative becomes further entrenched. So far, Ottawa has reminded Americans that Canada is a good partner and that tariffs would hurt both countries.

    But it’s not clear that appealing to the long Canadian-American history as allies is having much effect in the White House. In early February, Vice President JD Vance posted: “Spare me the sob story about how Canada is our ‘best friend’” and noted Canada’s low defence spending.

    A Canadian StratCom strategy

    The Canadian government therefore must invest in an ambitious campaign of strategic communications. It should drive home that Canadians trade on fair terms and that Canada buys more American goods than China, Japan, the United Kingdom and France combined.

    This StratCom effort must make clear that Canadians can and will be forced to buy elsewhere. It must note that Trump renegotiated a new Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade deal in 2018 and that the agreement was a win for the U.S.

    The campaign can employ humility and humour, but it must reinforce the mutual benefit of trade and make clear that Trump’s anti-Canada comments are not based in reality.

    Some specific claims must be targeted. Trump often notes that Canada has high tariffs on specific American products, like milk. But this can be misleading, as these are part of a negotiated supply control quota system.

    Rather than simply counter Trump’s narrative, the campaign should advance a Canadian one.

    Canadian leaders are starting to recognize this. Before leaving office, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau compared Trump’s treatment of Canada over trade with his conciliatory stance toward Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

    Former finance minister Chrystia Freeland has underscored the importance of communicating directly to regular Americans. The federal government has paid for anti-tariff ads on digital billboards along key highways in red states, including Florida, Nevada, Georgia, Michigan and Ohio.

    Canadians themselves are in on the act. Decades after Canadian actor and broadcaster Jeff Douglas appeared in the iconic “I am Canadian” commercial, he’s come out with a new rendition.

    “We are Canadian” rejects the president’s “51st State” threats. Its polite but firm tone is the sort of quintessentially Canadian response that should form the basis of a national StatCom effort.

    A new Jeff Douglas ‘We Are Canadian’ video.

    Controlling the narrative

    Given time and space, Trump can reshape the terms of the debate or even perceptions of reality. The Canadian government should therefore lead the way in defending the country’s trading practices and its value as a partner.

    This effort should reflect Canada’s traditional emphasis on respect and decency. Canadians are offended. But they should resist responses like booing another nation’s anthem — especially if it contributes to the president’s effort to paint Canadians as mean or disrespectful.

    The Canada-U.S. relationship will be changed by this experience. But whether the rift is lasting depends in part on whether Canadians believe regular Americans accept or reject the president’s narrative.

    A good communications effort could help Canada counter the president’s StratCom campaign and reduce the longer-term fallout from this unfair attack — no matter the repeated threats and slurs emanating from the Oval Office.

    Matthew Hefler 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. Forget booing the anthem, Canada must employ strategic communications to fight Trump’s lies – https://theconversation.com/forget-booing-the-anthem-canada-must-employ-strategic-communications-to-fight-trumps-lies-252704

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Peter Dutton promises $6 billion 12-month halving of petrol and diesel excise

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

    Opposition leader Peter Dutton will promise in his Thursday budget reply that a Coalition government would immediately halve the fuel excise on petrol and diesel.

    The cut, which would take the excise from 50.8 cents a litre to 25.4 cents, would be for a year, at a cost of A$6 billion.

    The opposition says the measure would mean a household with one vehicle filling up once a week would save about $14 weekly, on average. This would amount to about $700 to $750 over the year, based on a 55 litre tank.

    A two-car household would save about $28 a week on average – nearly $1500 over the year.

    Legislation for the excise cut would be introduced on the first parliamentary sitting day after the election so it could come into effect “as quickly as possible”.

    Dutton contrasted the immediate relief with the longer time frame before people received the tax cuts announced in the budget.

    Under the tax changes, taxpayers will receive a tax cut of up to $268 from July 1 next year and up to $536 every year from July 1 2027.

    The $17.1 billion income tax package was being rushed through the Senate on Wednesday night, as the parliament readies to rise for the election, that could be called as early as Friday for May 3.

    The government wanted to pass the legislation immediately to put the Coalition, which opposed the bill and voted against it in parliament, on the spot.

    Also, having the tax cuts in law gives greater certainty to them, as Labor promotes them in the coming campaign.

    Dutton said of his proposed excise cut: “If elected, we will deliver this cost of living relief immediately – whereas people have to wait 15 months for Labor’s 70 cent a day tax tweak.”

    “This cost of living relief will make a real difference to families and small businesses – everyone from tradies, to mums and dads, to older Australians, and to transport delivery workers,” he said.

    “The commute to work, taking the kids to school or sport, the family drive, or the trip to the shops will all cost less under the Coalition. Our plan will save many hundreds of dollars for families across Australia.

    “Lowering costs to small businesses, means lower costs for goods and services at the checkout.”

    The Morrison government introduced a six-month cut to fuel excise in 2022. The Albanese government declined to extend it when it expired.

    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. Peter Dutton promises $6 billion 12-month halving of petrol and diesel excise – https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-promises-6-billion-12-month-halving-of-petrol-and-diesel-excise-250896

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor on tax top-ups and budget bottom lines

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

    As the election starter’s gun is about to be fired, Tuesday’s budget announced modest income tax cuts as the government’s latest cost-of-living measure. The Coalition has opposed the tax relief, with Peter Dutton’s Thursday budget reply to put forward his policy counters on the cost of living.

    Meanwhile, the domestic economic debate is being conducted as President Donald Trump prepares to unveil more tariffs, which are likely to produce further uncertainty in the world economy.

    On this podcast we are joined by Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor.

    Chalmers says the government is making every last-minute effort to argue against Australia being hit with more US tariffs. He’s ready to make personal representations if that’s thought useful.

    I’ve been discussing that with Don Farrell, the minister for trade, whether or not that would be helpful to some of the efforts that he’s currently engaged in. So we’re working as a team on it. We’re working out the best [and] most effective ways to engage with the Americans. Again, speaking up for and standing up for our national interest.

    We’re not uniquely impacted by the tariffs either already imposed or proposed. But we’ve got a lot of skin in the game here. We’re a trading nation, we generate a lot of prosperity on global markets.

    A criticism from some about the budget was that climate change wasn’t mentioned explicitly. Chalmers takes issue with that.

    I would have thought that an extra A$3 billion for green metals, which is about leveraging our traditional strengths and resources, our developing industries and the energy transformation to create something that the world needs, I think that’s a climate change policy.

    And also the Innovation Fund, another $1.5 billion or so for the Innovation Fund in terms of sustainable aviation fuels, that’s a climate policy and also we’re recapitalising another couple of billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

    So in every budget, we’ve made new investments in climate change and in energy and this week’s budget was no different in that regard.

    Angus Taylor is scathing about Labor’s “top-up” tax cuts, which were the budget’s centrepiece, saying:

    A government that has overseen an unprecedented collapse in our living standards, unrivalled by any other country in the world, and they’re trying to tell Australians that 70 cents a day, more than a year from now, is a solution to that problem?

    It’s laughable, it is not even going to touch the sides, it’s Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It’s a cruel hoax. And frankly, the idea that this is good government is absolutely laughable.

    On what change of approach a Coalition government would take, Angus Taylor points to the “fiscal rules that we adhered to when we were last in government”.

    They were on the back of the rules that were established in the Charter of Budget Honesty that was established by Peter Costello in the 1990s to make sure your economy grows faster than your spending. That doesn’t mean spending doesn’t grow, it just means your economy grows faster.

    So both of those things matter, a faster growing economy and managing your spending so that it’s not growing faster. Jim Chalmers doesn’t get that.

    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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor on tax top-ups and budget bottom lines – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-jim-chalmers-and-angus-taylor-on-tax-top-ups-and-budget-bottom-lines-253112

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Kenya’s decision to make maths optional in high school is a bad idea – what should happen instead

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Moses Ngware, Senior Research Scientist, African Population and Health Research Center

    Kenya’s education ministry announced in March 2025 that mathematics would be an optional subject in senior secondary school, which begins in grade 10. Most students in this grade are aged 15 years. The education minister said the mathematics taught from grade 4 to grade 9 was sufficient for foundational “numeracy literacy”.

    The change, in January 2026, is part of a shift to a new education system styled as the competence based curriculum. The decision is not to scrap maths altogether but rather to make it optional. However, given the poor performance in this subject, it is expected there will be few takers.

    Maths is a compulsory subject in the first 12 years of basic education in many African countries. This is the case in Mauritius, Nigeria and South Africa, which opted for a choice between maths and mathematical literacy for grades 10-12.

    The older education system, known as 8-4-4, featured eight years of primary school and four each at high school and university. Under this, core maths, dubbed Alternative A, is compulsory for all schoolgoing children until the second year of high school (form 2). Most students in this grade are aged 16 years. In the final two years of high school, one has the option of switching to Alternative B, a simplified version of Alternative A introduced in 2009. Alternative B is similar to South Africa’s mathematical literacy subject.

    The decision has triggered heated debates in the country, in favour and against.

    As a researcher who has taught high school maths and researched maths teaching for over 20 years, I have the view that making maths optional is not a good idea. This is because both individuals and society need maths, regardless of the career path they might choose.

    It’s been argued that the change applies to the last two senior years of high school, which was the case in the old system too. For the new curriculum, however, this should not have been a problem as it is competence-based. This implies that what matters is the specific skills and knowledge mastered by a student, and not the examination scores.

    The Kenyan education department should establish the root causes of the low performance in maths, and fix them. Research shows that chief among these are resource allocation; weak teacher preparation and support for foundational numeracy instruction; a learning disability known as dyscalculia; and the behavioural performance of maths teachers.

    Kenya’s maths problem

    In the 2022 Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education exams, graded between A (highest) and E (lowest), over half of the 881,416 candidates’ maths scores fell in the lowest two grades, D and E. This improved only marginally in 2023. To put the performance in context, the pass rate in high school certificate maths examinations in Mauritius improved from 81.4% to 91.8% between 2019 and 2022.

    There are a number of reasons for this dismal performance in Kenya:

    Resource allocation: The better-resourced national schools can only admit a small number of students, leaving out over 70% who join low-resourced day schools. Resources for learning maths range from teachers to interactive teaching and learning materials inside the classroom. With the support of partners such as the Global Partnership for Education, the government aims to achieve a 1:1 textbook-per-student ratio goal. However, the flow of capitation grants to secondary schools has been wanting, jeopardising access to resources at the school level.

    Teacher preparation: Teachers aren’t well prepared to support learners in foundational numeracy (maths in early grades). Foundational numeracy skills are critical in creating strong building blocks for future learning and success in later grades.

    Teacher behaviour: Classroom observation studies reveal that maths teachers favour boys. Furthermore, above average learners sit in the front closer to the chalkboard, and learners are denied positive reinforcement that would motivate them to learn maths. There are also negative attitudes about maths as a difficult subject, reinforcing the stereotype that it is only suitable for boys and “bright” children.

    Dyscalculia: Worldwide, 3%-7% of the general population are affected by a disability known as dyscalculia. In Kenya, 6.4% among primary and secondary school children have the disability. It is a condition that affects a person’s ability to understand numerical concepts. By implication, the number of the 962,512 Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education candidates of 2024 with this disability works out to between 28,000 and 68,000 candidates. But Kenya’s education system doesn’t support teachers in diagnosing learners with dyscalculia, or managing their disability.

    Policy options

    There are alternatives to making maths an optional subject in senior secondary school.

    The system needs to focus on the root causes of low performance, and then on how to fix them.

    I suggest the following solutions.

    • Avoid unnecessarily using achievement in maths to determine access to academic and training programmes. This way, one’s career will not solely be determined by performance in maths.

    • Keep a simpler maths alternative, or maths literacy, for senior secondary instead of making maths optional.

    • Teachers should continue to develop their competence in maths, focusing on content knowledge as well as knowledge of how to teach numeracy.

    • The general public should communicate effectively to eliminate negative stereotypes and unhelpful attitudes in society. The aim is to shift mindsets so that maths is perceived as part of life – making it necessary to support all children to succeed in maths.

    • Help learners to overcome dyscalculia, using multisensory teaching approaches – a way of teaching that engages more than one sense at a time: sight, hearing, movement and touch.

    Moses Ngware receives funding from the African Population and Health Research Center. He is affiliated with the African Population and Health Research Center.

    – ref. Kenya’s decision to make maths optional in high school is a bad idea – what should happen instead – https://theconversation.com/kenyas-decision-to-make-maths-optional-in-high-school-is-a-bad-idea-what-should-happen-instead-252965

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘The bush calls us’: the defiant women who demanded a place on the walking track

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ruby Ekkel, PhD student in Australian History, Australian National University

    Fairfax Corporation (1932)

    ➡️ View the full interactive version of this article here.

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

    – ref. ‘The bush calls us’: the defiant women who demanded a place on the walking track – https://theconversation.com/the-bush-calls-us-the-defiant-women-who-demanded-a-place-on-the-walking-track-241126

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Going to the dentist is expensive. Here are 3 things you can do to protect your oral health – and 3 things to avoid

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dileep Sharma, Professor and Head of Discipline – Oral Health, University of Newcastle

    Jiri Hera/Shutterstock

    Around one in three Australians delayed their visit to a dentist in the last financial year – or didn’t go at all – due to cost.

    Given it doesn’t look like dental treatment is being added to Medicare any time soon, what can you do?

    Most oral and dental diseases are preventable, if you take care of your teeth and mouth. In-between visits to the dentist, here’s what you can do to avoid preventable issues – and blow-out costs.

    What causes diseases in your mouth?

    More than 1,000 species of microbes live in the mouth. Most dental and oral diseases are due to an imbalance or overgrowth in these microbes within the plaque (or “biofilm”).

    Plaque gathers on the hard surfaces inside the mouth (your teeth), as well as soft surfaces (such as your tongue). Removing plaque manually with brushing and flossing is the most effective way to maintain oral health.

    Plaque starts to form immediately after brushing, which is why you should remove it regularly.

    Things to do

    1. Brush twice a day

    Use a toothbrush with soft bristles (either electric or manual). Soft bristles remove plaque without damaging the teeth or gums. A fluoridated toothpaste will help strengthen the teeth.

    Brush for at least two minutes, using a sweeping and scrubbing motion, away from the gums. It’s a good idea to start at the back teeth and work your way through to the front teeth. Don’t forget to scrub the biting surface of the teeth.

    2. Floss

    Don’t skip this step – it’s crucial to clean in-between the teeth where a toothbrush can’t reach. Once a day should be enough.

    Whether you use floss, a pick, a bottle brush or other devices may depend on the space between your teeth.

    3. Clean your tongue

    To completely remove the microbes, it’s also important to clean your tongue regularly (twice daily). You can use a toothbrush while you’re already brushing, or a special tongue scraper – just don’t brush or scrape too hard.

    Brushing twice a day is important to remove bacteria in the mouth and on the teeth.
    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Things to avoid

    1. Sugary drinks and refined food

    What we eat and drink can affect the mouth’s pH.

    When bacteria in the mouth break down sugars, they produce acids. The acidity can dissolve minerals in the teeth and lead to decay.

    Refined foods – such as white bread, cakes and pastries – can easily be broken down by the mouth’s bacteria. So, having a lot of them, as well as sugary drinks, can damage the teeth and cause cavities.

    Water is the best choice to drink with your meals. Sparkling and soda water are acidic and can lead to mineral loss from the teeth, even when they are unflavoured. There is evidence flavoured sparkling water can be as harmful as orange juice.

    2. Tobacco and vaping

    Smoking or using smokeless tobacco (such as chewed tobacco or snuff pouches) is linked to oral cancer.

    Nicotine is also known to increase the severity of gum diseases – even when inflammation isn’t visible.

    This is true for both smoking and smokeless tobacco (such as chewed tobacco or snuff pouches).

    Vaping also increases your risk of developing cavities and gum disease.

    3. Too much alcohol, tea and coffee

    Drinking a lot of coffee, tea or red wine can stain your teeth. So if you’re concerned about your teeth appearing yellow or brown, it’s best to limit your intake.

    Drinking alcohol is also linked to an increased risk of developing oral cancers, which most commonly affect the tongue, floor of the mouth, cheek and palate.

    Drinks that are fizzy and sugary can damage the teeth.
    Svetlana Foote/Shutterstock

    Your mouth’s health is linked to your overall health

    Leaving oral diseases untreated (such as gum disease) has been linked to developing other conditions, such as liver disease, and pre-existing conditions getting worse.

    This is particularly evident if you have diabetes. Evidence shows it’s easier to manage blood sugar levels when gum diseases are properly treated.

    You can keep an eye on symptoms, such as bleeding gums which may be an early sign of gum disease. If symptoms that worry you, talk to your GP or diabetes educator. They may be able to refer you to a dentist if needed.

    Dileep Sharma receives funding from Dental Council of NSW, International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research, Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, International College of Dentists and Tropical Australian Academic Health Centre for his dental research projects. He is affiliated with The International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research and Australian Dental Association.

    – ref. Going to the dentist is expensive. Here are 3 things you can do to protect your oral health – and 3 things to avoid – https://theconversation.com/going-to-the-dentist-is-expensive-here-are-3-things-you-can-do-to-protect-your-oral-health-and-3-things-to-avoid-250786

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Non-compete clauses make it too hard to change jobs. Banning them for millions of Australians is a good move

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William van Caenegem, Professor of Law, Bond University

    Zivica Kerkez/Shutterstock

    The Labor government used this week’s budget to announce it plans to ban non-compete agreements for employees on less than A$175,000 per year, a move that will affect about 3 million Australian workers.

    Describing them as “unfair”, a media release by federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers said non‑compete clauses “are holding back Australian workers from switching to better, higher‑paying jobs”. Banning non-compete clauses could lift the wages of affected workers by up to 4%, the government has said.

    The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry quickly called the measure “heavy-handed”, arguing that very few employees, according to businesses, turn down employment due to non-compete clauses.

    However, research I did with colleagues from Melbourne and Monash universities showed very few employees signing a new job contract ever think about the end of the relationship and what might happen after.

    Workers often accept non-compete clauses with little understanding or regard for their practical implications.

    What the law currently says

    The current law says contractual clauses that stop departing workers from taking a new job in their preferred line of work, often for long periods of time, are – in principle – unenforceable.

    That is, however, unless a court says a particular non-compete clause is “reasonably required” to protect a “legitimate interest”.

    Therein lies the problem: it is hard to predict when, where or under what circumstances a court will find a particular clause is “reasonably required”.

    Our research concluded this uncertainty favoured employers with greater nous and resources.

    These employers have the advantage over employees, who are rarely willing or able to go to court arguing their non-compete clause is invalid.

    This has a chilling effect on the mobility of employees. In other words, these clauses make it harder for workers to change jobs.

    That’s detrimental to labour market competition and can hold back knowledge-sharing and economic growth.

    Global efforts to ban non-compete clauses

    In California, non-compete clauses have long been banned. Many economists have identified this as among the key reasons for the success of the Californian knowledge economy. This example also featured in a submission I made (with researcher Caitlyn Douglas) to a 2024 Treasury review into non-compete clauses in Australia.

    US research from 2021 also found non-compete clauses can hinder labour mobility. They can impede fundamental freedoms such as freedom of employment and freedom of general competition.

    In 2024, under President Biden, the US Federal Trade Commission banned non-competes clauses across the US.

    However, the ban has been blocked due to legal challenges in the US Federal Court. It’s also been reported the Trump administration may kill off these reforms altogether.

    The UK government proposed in 2023 limiting non-competes to a maximum of three months.

    Holding employees back

    Unlike in some countries, Australian law does not require employers to compensate their ex-employee for loss of income during their non-compete period.

    This means that if workers comply and do not work in the field they’re most skilled for, they will take a serious financial hit for months or more.

    This is another detrimental effect of non-compete clauses. They really hurt if the worker in question is lower paid and has very specific skills (such as hairdressers or dental assistants).

    In that respect, Labor’s mooted ban on such clauses for employees on less than $175,000 is well conceived.

    Courts will usually only enforce a non-compete clause if its terms are reasonable to protect a legitimate interest, such as trade secrets an employee has learned during their employment.

    However, it’s mostly higher-ranked employees that have access to really significant trade secrets, such as technical information, confidential business plans or pricing structures.

    Higher paid employees are also more often the “public face of the business”. A court might decide it’s fair to say such workers can’t leave and the next day turn up as the main face of a competing business.

    And the new government proposal won’t leave employers without any recourse against employees who take their genuine trade secrets and pass them on to their new employers. They will still be able to sue for breach of confidence.

    Non-competes really hurt if the worker in question is lower paid and has very specific skills (such as hairdressers or dental assistants).
    Dorde Krstic/Shutterstock

    Challenges for reform

    The proposed reforms are well supported by authoritative legal and economic research.

    The federal government will have to consider carefully how to make sure the prohibition cannot be easily circumvented.

    And they’ll have to ensure these reforms don’t make it more likely judges will find restraints valid for those on more than A$175,000. Labour and knowledge mobility remain crucially important for them too.

    Another key challenge will be ensuring a ban doesn’t encourage practices or clauses restricting competition to emerge or become too prevalent.

    That could include “garden leave” clauses. These give a departing employee a long notice period, during which they are paid but do not work and are isolated from their employment (and instead “doing the gardening” at home).

    The risk is that if employers can no longer include non-compete clauses in contracts, they might use long garden leave provisions more often.

    Although it is good that “garden leave” employees get paid during that period (unlike during a non-compete term), they are still isolated from their work, stagnating in their skills and unable to move to new employment.

    William van Caenegem received funding from the Australian Research Council a decade ago for some of the research referred to in this article.

    – ref. Non-compete clauses make it too hard to change jobs. Banning them for millions of Australians is a good move – https://theconversation.com/non-compete-clauses-make-it-too-hard-to-change-jobs-banning-them-for-millions-of-australians-is-a-good-move-253101

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Neal, Senior lecturer in Economics / Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

    Commentators have branded last night’s federal budget as an attempt to win over typical Australian voters concerned about the cost of living, ahead of what is expected to be a tightly fought federal election.

    The budget’s big-ticket items included tax cuts and energy bill relief, plus measures to make childcare and healthcare cheaper.

    There was little in the budget dedicated to stemming Australia’s environmental crises. Given this, one might assume the average voter cares little for action on conservation and curbing climate change. But is this true?

    Polling suggests the clear answer is “no”. Voters consistently say they want more government action on both conservation and climate change. As the federal election looms, Labor is running out of time to show it cares about Australia’s precious natural environment.

    What environmental spending was in the budget?

    The main spending on the environment in last night’s budget had been announced in the weeks before. It includes:

    These measures are welcome. However, the overall environment spending is inadequate, given the scale of the challenges Australia faces.

    Australia’s protected areas, such as national parks, have suffered decades of poor funding, and the federal budget has not rectified this. It means these sensitive natural places will remain vulnerable to harms such as invasive species and bushfires.

    More broadly, Australia is failing to stem the drivers of biodiversity loss, such as land clearing and climate change. This means more native species become threatened with extinction each year.

    Experts say conserving Australia’s threatened species would cost an extra $2 billion a year. Clearly, the federal budget spending of an extra $50 million a year falls well short of this.

    And global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. This contributes to ever-worsening climate change, bringing heatwaves, more extreme fires, more variable rainfall and rising seas.

    Contrary to what the federal budget priorities might suggest, Australians are concerned about these issues.

    What does the average voter think about the environment?

    Results from reputable polling provide insight into what the average voters want when it comes to environmental policy and spending.

    When it comes to conservation, the evidence is clear. Polling by YouGov in October last year (commissioned by two environment groups) estimated that 70% of Australians think the Labor government should do more to “protect and restore nature”. The vast majority of voters (86%) supported stronger national nature laws.

    Essential Research polling in October 2023 found 53% of voters think the government is not doing enough to preserve endangered species. About the same proportion said more government action was needed to preserve native forests, and oceans and rivers.

    On climate change, the average voter appears to have views significantly out of step with both major parties. The Australia Institute’s Climate of the Nation report last year found 50% of voters believed the government was not doing enough to prepare for and adapt to climate impacts.

    The report also found 50% of voters supported a moratorium on new coal mines in Australia, 69% support charging companies a levy for each tonne of carbon pollution they emit, and 69% are concerned about climate change.

    Also in 2024, a Lowy Institute poll found 57% of Australians supported the statement that “global warming is a serious and pressing problem, and that we should take steps now to mitigate it even if it involves significant costs”.

    There’s a caveat here. As the cost-of-living crisis has worsened, the issue has edged out all others in terms of voter concerns at the upcoming election.

    For example, in January this year, Roy Morgan polling found 57% of voters considered cost of living one of their top-three issues of concern. Only 23% considered global warming a top-three issue.

    However, global warming was still more of a concern for voters than managing the economy (22%), keeping interest rates down (19%) and reducing taxes (15%). It was tied with reducing crime (23%).

    It’s also important to note that climate change and cost-of-living pressures are not separate issues. Research suggests that as climate change worsens, it will cause inflation to worsen.

    Labor’s unmet election promises

    The singular focus on the cost of living in last night’s federal budget means environmental spending has been neglected.

    Context matters here. Labor has utterly failed to deliver its 2022 election promise to rewrite federal environmental protection laws and create an environmental protection agency.

    The government could have used this budget to repair its environmental credentials going into the next election – but it didn’t. The many voters concerned about the environment might well wonder if Labor considers the environment a policy priority at all.

    The upcoming election result may show whether minor parties and independents better reflect the Australian electorate’s views on this important issue.

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

    – ref. The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment – https://theconversation.com/the-2025-federal-budget-fails-the-millions-of-voters-who-want-action-on-australias-struggling-environment-253099

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Our work and home lives are blending more than ever – how do we navigate this new ‘zigzag’ reality?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Candice Harris, Professor of Management, Auckland University of Technology

    Black Salmon/Shutterstock

    For decades, researchers examined work and home life as separate domains. If they were taken together it was usually to study so-called work-life balance.

    But these days, the reality is more complex. Our work and home lives are more seamlessly integrated than ever, largely because of communications technology and the work-from-home trend.

    This can mean we deal with a work matter and a bit of domestic or family business virtually simultaneously, shifting attention and focus from one to the other within seconds.

    We’ve dubbed this phenomenon “zigzag working” to describe how employees blend work and family roles within times and spaces that might once have been separate.

    During and in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, this became more common as many working parents had to perform their paid work at home. But as workers increasingly return to the office, has zigzag working become the new normal?

    In our research, we studied zigzag working beyond COVID to test support for it, and to understand its effects on conflict and happiness. Our study used a survey with two samples: 318 employees and 373 managers.

    Zigzag working in action

    Zigzag working provides a unique way to examine the blending of work and life. Frequent interspersing of family and work happens regularly. But what does it look like?

    Consider Raj, a senior banking professional and solo parent of a 14-year-old. Here’s how a couple of hours of interspersing work and family while in the office unfold:

    11:02 am. While listening to the CEO’s update, Raj messages his son, encouraging him to play basketball in the school break instead of gaming. His son responds with “whatever”.

    11:09 am. Raj replies: “Yes, whatever – go have a run.”

    11:48 am. He dashes out to buy lunch, remembering school camp fees are due by 5 pm.

    11:54 am. Heading back to his office, he takes a call from a colleague.

    12:02 pm. Back at his desk, Raj checks his diary while on the call, realising it’s his mother’s birthday.

    12:11 pm. Raj orders flowers for her, remembering he often said “whatever” as a teenager. He starts a message to his son but is interrupted when pulled into an urgent meeting.

    12:27 pm. As the meeting unfolds, Raj realises it has minimal impact on his division. Multitasking, he messages his son, replies to an email and mentally reviews his to-do list, including the camp fees.

    12.43 pm. Working on a product proposal, he notices no replies from his son or the florist, but his mother has messaged telling him not to bring anything for dinner since he’s so busy.

    Technology has allowed employees to blend work and family roles simultaneously.
    GaudiLab/Shutterstock

    Zigzag working results

    After speaking with employees and managers, we were able to identify several key points.

    • Zigzag working, characterised by frequent small transitions between work and family responsibilities, occurs throughout the workday.

    • Both men and women regularly zigzag between work and family responsibilities during the day. Gender differences were tested for, finding no significant variation in zigzagging behaviour. This contrasts with prior research that often finds gender differences in work-family conflict.

    • Managers zigzag more than employees.

    • Zigzag working is more prevalent for those working from home. This aligns with the idea that remote work environments make it easier for employees to switch rapidly between work and personal responsibilities.

    • Even those not working from home still reported moderate levels of zigzag working, suggesting this phenomenon is not limited to remote work.

    • Zigzag working was linked to both work-family conflict and happiness, underscoring its unique impact. While managing multiple responsibilities can be challenging, it can also be rewarding – especially when individuals feel a sense of control over their time and tasks.

    The key takeaway? Zigzagging exists, and it is practised across genders, levels of seniority and locations. While it makes workers busier, our research found it also makes them happier.

    Employers should embrace zigzag working

    Recognising zigzagging as a normal work dynamic can foster a more supportive workplace, enhancing employee wellbeing, focus and overall performance. Employers can promote discussions about zigzagging to challenge rigid work-life boundaries.

    Encouraging men to share their zigzagging experiences broadens the conversation beyond the assumption that openly juggling work and family is primarily a women’s issue. Normalising work-family intersections can make them feel more manageable and even gratifying.

    Zigzagging is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Employers should recognise that zigzagging can vary by job role, time constraints and caregiving responsibilities, differing across professions and individuals.

    Technology can further support zigzag working, enabling staff to efficiently manage both work and family responsibilities.

    Zigzagging provides a fresh perspective on the blend of work and family, revealing the interplay between work and family can be simultaneously both beneficial and detrimental. Zigzaggers may be busy, but they are also happy – working as masters of their own universes.

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

    – ref. Our work and home lives are blending more than ever – how do we navigate this new ‘zigzag’ reality? – https://theconversation.com/our-work-and-home-lives-are-blending-more-than-ever-how-do-we-navigate-this-new-zigzag-reality-251601

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia stands firm behind its foreign aid in the budget, but the future remains precarious

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Honorary Fellow, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

    This week’s budget will come as a relief to Australia’s neighbours in the Indo-Pacific that rely on development assistance. The Albanese government did not follow the lead of US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in cutting its foreign aid.

    The Trump administration froze foreign assistance and dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID) when it came into office. Meanwhile, the UK announced 40% aid cuts of its own.

    It is to Australia’s credit this has not happened here. Australia’s development budget remains intact this year and in forward estimates.

    Sensible policymakers seem to recognise that Australia’s strategic circumstances are different. As a nation surrounded by low- and middle-income countries, Australia cannot vacate the field on development issues without enormous reputational, diplomatic and strategic damage.

    This budget shows Australia is committed to its region – with 75% of the foreign assistance budget flowing to the Indo-Pacific – and sees development partnerships as a way to solve shared problems.

    What’s in the budget for aid and development

    The details of the development budget show Australia has been listening to its partners to identify critical gaps and reprioritise funds.

    In the Pacific, funding has risen to a historic high, with no country receiving less aid. There have been changes in focus to respond to the US funding cuts, including programs on HIV/AIDS in Papua New Guinea and Fiji and gender-based violence in the Pacific.

    This fits with Australia’s desire to be a partner of choice – and to prevent an increased Chinese presence in the region.

    In Southeast Asia, Australia has increased its aid to all countries and has shifted funding, particularly in health where the US was a major donor.

    This is in Australia’s interest. A new program on Indonesian human and animal health, for example, will help prevent health system failures in areas such as tuberculosis and polio elimination on Australia’s doorstep.

    Funds have also been reallocated to support civil society organisations working in vital areas like media freedom and human rights, which would have been a casualty in the US cuts.

    There was also a shift in humanitarian funding to Myanmar and Bangladesh, where the US aid withdrawal has left Rohingya refugees in a desperate state.

    Importantly, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is helping local organisations survive US cuts by allowing temporary flexibility in the use of grant funding to help them continue to deliver essential services.

    Beyond these reprioritisations, the other heartening thing about the budget is its normality.

    It maintains funding for assistive technology for people with disabilities and an Inclusion and Equality Fund to support LGBTQIA+ civil society organisations and human rights defenders. There are programs on maternal health, including reproductive rights.

    The future is still precarious

    However, it would be wrong to think this budget will fill the gaps left by the US withdrawal.

    The ANU Development Policy Centre estimates that traditional OECD donors will cut at least 25% of their aid by 2027. It said, “when that much of a thing goes missing, it’s clearly at risk of collapse”.

    Some development organisations will close their doors, potentially including household names that Australians have donated to for years. This is a time of huge transformation for the sector.

    Another future problem will be maintaining multilateral institutions that rely on US funding – including the World Health Organization, World Food Programme, World Bank and Asian Development Bank. This will require a concerted effort with other countries.

    So, while the Australian budget shows a government deploying current funding as intelligently as possible, there will eventually be limits to this approach.

    In the “new world of uncertainty” described in the treasurer’s budget speech, it simply won’t be possible to meet Australia’s strategic aims and keep development spending at its current rate. It is still far away from 1% of the federal budget.

    At some point, Australia must rethink the trajectory of its international commitments.

    Analysis by the Development Intelligence Lab, a think tank working on development cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, has shown that over the last 25 years, the international parts of the federal budget – defence, intelligence, diplomacy and development – have held steady at around 10%.

    In a time of disruption, this might need to change. In 1949, for example, Australia invested almost 9% of the federal budget on development and diplomacy alone – not including defence.

    Those in the foreign aid sector can celebrate Australia has not pulled back on its commitments like the US and UK. At the same time, we should expect the next government will inevitably be called on to do more.

    Melissa Conley Tyler is Executive Director at the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue (AP4D), an initiative funded by the foreign affairs and defence portfolios and hosted by the Australian Council for International Development..

    – ref. Australia stands firm behind its foreign aid in the budget, but the future remains precarious – https://theconversation.com/australia-stands-firm-behind-its-foreign-aid-in-the-budget-but-the-future-remains-precarious-253028

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Leak of US military plans on Signal is a classic case of ‘shadow IT’. It shows why security systems need to be easy to use

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

    Yesterday, The Atlantic magazine revealed an extraordinary national security blunder in the United States. Top US government officials had discussed plans for a bombing campaign in Yemen against Houthi rebels in a Signal group chat which inadvertently included The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.

    This is hardly the first time senior US government officials have used non-approved systems to handle classified information. In 2009, the then US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fatefully decided to accept the risk of storing her emails on a server in her basement because she preferred the convenience of accessing them using her personal BlackBerry.

    Much has been written about the unprecedented nature of this latest incident. Reporting has suggested the US officials involved may have also violated federal laws that require any communication, including text messages, about official acts to be properly preserved.

    But what can we learn from it to help us better understand how to design secure systems?

    A classic case of ‘shadow IT’

    Signal is regarded by many cybersecurity experts as one of the world’s most secure messaging apps. It has become an established part of many workplaces, including government.

    Even so, it should never be used to store and send classified information. Governments, including in the US, define strict rules for how national security classified information needs to be handled and secured. These rules prohibit the use of non-approved systems, including commercial messaging apps such as Signal plus cloud services such as Dropbox or OneDrive, for sending and storing classified data.

    The sharing of military plans on Signal is a classic case of what IT professionals call “shadow IT”.

    It refers to the all-too-common practice of employees setting up parallel IT infrastructure for business purposes without the approval of central IT administrators.

    This incident highlights the potential for shadow IT to create security risks.

    Government agencies and large organisations employ teams of cybersecurity professionals whose job it is to manage and secure the organisation’s IT infrastructure from cyber threats. At a minimum, these teams need to track what systems are being used to store sensitive information. Defending against sophisticated threats requires constant monitoring of IT systems.

    In this sense, shadow IT creates security blind spots: systems that adversaries can breach while going undetected, not least because the IT security team doesn’t even know these systems exist.

    It’s possible that part of the motivation for the US officials in question using shadow IT systems in this instance might have been avoiding the scrutiny and record-keeping requirements of the official channels. For example, some of the messages in the Signal group chat were set to disappear after one week, and some after four.

    However, we have known for at least a decade that employees also build shadow IT systems not because they are trying to weaken their organisation’s cybersecurity. Instead, a common motivation is that by using shadow IT systems many employees can get their work done faster than when using official, approved systems.

    Usability is key

    The latest incident highlights an important but often overlooked lesson in cybersecurity: whether a security system is easy to use has an outsized impact on the degree to which it helps improve security.

    To borrow from US Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, we might say that a system designer who prioritises security at the expense of usability will produce a system that is neither usable nor secure.

    The belief that to make a system more secure requires making it harder to use is as widespread as it is wrong. The best systems are the ones that are both highly secure and highly usable.

    The reason is simple: a system that is secure yet difficult to use securely will invariably be used insecurely, if at all. Anyone whose inbox auto-complete has caused them to send an email to the wrong person will understand this risk. It likely also explains how The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief might have been mistakenly added by US officials to the Signal group chat.

    While we cannot know for certain, reporting suggests Signal displayed the name of Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat group only as “JG”. Signal doesn’t make it easy to confirm the identity of someone in a group chat, except by their phone number or contact name.

    In this sense, Signal gives relatively few clues about the identities of people in chats. This makes it relatively easy to inadvertently add the wrong “JG” from one’s contact list to a group chat.

    Signal is one of the most secure messaging apps, but should never be used to store and send classified information.
    Ink Drop/Shutterstock

    A highly secure – and highly usable – system

    Fortunately, we can have our cake and eat it too. My own research shows how.

    In collaboration with Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group, I helped develop what’s known as the Cross Domain Desktop Compositor. This device allows secure access to classified information while being easier to use than traditional solutions.

    It is easier to use because it allows users to connect to the internet. At the same time, it keeps sensitive data physically separate – and therefore secure – but allows it to be displayed alongside internet applications such as web browsers.

    One key to making this work was employing mathematical reasoning to prove the device’s software provided rock-solid security guarantees. This allowed us to marry the flexibility of software with the strong hardware-enforced security, without introducing additional vulnerability.

    Where to from here?

    Avoiding security incidents such as this one requires people following the rules to keep everyone secure. This is especially true when handling classified information, even if doing so requires more work than setting up shadow IT workarounds.

    In the meantime, we can avoid the need for people to work around the rules by focusing more research on how to make systems both secure and usable.

    Toby Murray receives funding from the Department of Defence. He is Director of the Defence Science Institute, which is funded by the Victorian, Tasmanian and Commonwealth Governments. He previously worked for the Department of Defence.

    – ref. Leak of US military plans on Signal is a classic case of ‘shadow IT’. It shows why security systems need to be easy to use – https://theconversation.com/leak-of-us-military-plans-on-signal-is-a-classic-case-of-shadow-it-it-shows-why-security-systems-need-to-be-easy-to-use-253036

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What makes a good search engine? These 4 models can help you use search in the age of AI

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Coghlan, Senior Lecturer in Digital Ethics, Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

    beast01/Shutterstock

    Every day, users ask search engines millions of questions. The information we receive can shape our opinions and behaviour.

    We are often not aware of their influence, but internet search tools sort and rank web content when responding to our queries. This can certainly help us learn more things. But search tools can also return low-quality information and even misinformation.

    Recently, large language models (LLMs) have entered the search scene. While LLMs are not search engines, commercial web search engines have started to include LLM-based artificial intelligence (AI) features into their products. Microsoft’s Copilot and Google’s Overviews are examples of this trend.

    AI-enhanced search is marketed as convenient. But, together with other changes in the nature of search over the last decades, it raises the question: what is a good search engine?

    Our new paper, published in AI and Ethics, explores this. To make the possibilities clearer, we imagine four search tool models: Customer Servant, Librarian, Journalist and Teacher. These models reflect design elements in search tools and are loosely based on matching human roles.

    The four models of search tools

    Customer Servant

    Workers in customer service give people the things they request. If someone asks for a “burger and fries”, they don’t query whether the request is good for the person, or whether they might really be after something else.

    The search model we call Customer Servant is somewhat like the first computer-aided information retrieval systems introduced in the 1950s. These returned sets of unranked documents matching a Boolean query – using simple logical rules to define relationships between keywords (e.g. “cats NOT dogs”).

    Librarian

    As the name suggests, this model somewhat resembles human librarians. Librarian also provides content that people request, but it doesn’t always take queries at face value.

    Instead, it aims for “relevance” by inferring user intentions from contextual information such as location, time or the history of user interactions. Classic web search engines of the late 1990s and early 2000s that rank results and provide a list of resources – think early Google – sit in this category.

    Librarians don’t just retrieve information, they strive for relevance.
    Tyler Olson/Shutterstock

    Journalist

    Journalists go beyond librarians. While often responding to what people want to know, journalists carefully curate that information, at times weeding out falsehoods and canvassing various public viewpoints.

    Journalists aim to make people better informed. The Journalist search model does something similar. It may customise the presentation of results by providing additional information, or by diversifying search results to give a more balanced list of viewpoints or perspectives.

    Teacher

    Human teachers, like journalists, aim at giving accurate information. However, they may exercise even more control: teachers may strenuously debunk erroneous information, while pointing learners to the very best expert sources, including lesser-known ones. They may even refuse to expand on claims they deem false or superficial.

    LLM-based conversational search systems such as Copilot or Gemini may play a roughly similar role. By providing a synthesised response to a prompt, they exercise more control over presented information than classic web search engines.

    They may also try to explicitly discredit problematic views on topics such as health, politics, the environment or history. They might reply with “I can’t promote misinformation” or “This topic requires nuance”. Some LLMs convey a strong “opinion” on what is genuine knowledge and what is unedifying.

    No search model is best

    We argue each search tool model has strengths and drawbacks.

    The Customer Servant is highly explainable: every result can be directly tied to keywords in your query. But this precision also limits the system, as it can’t grasp broader or deeper information needs beyond the exact terms used.

    The Librarian model uses additional signals like data about clicks to return content more aligned with what users are really looking for. The catch is these systems may introduce bias. Even with the best intentions, choices about relevance and data sources can reflect underlying value judgements.

    The Journalist model shifts the focus toward helping users understand topics, from science to world events, more fully. It aims to present factual information and various perspectives in balanced ways.

    This approach is especially useful in moments of crisis – like a global pandemic – where countering misinformation is critical. But there’s a trade-off: tweaking search results for social good raises concerns about user autonomy. It may feel paternalistic, and could open the door to broader content interventions.

    The Teacher model is even more interventionist. It guides users towards what it “judges” to be good information, while criticising or discouraging access to content it deems harmful or false. This can promote learning and critical thinking.

    But filtering or downranking content can also limit choice, and raises red flags if the “teacher” – whether algorithm or AI – is biased or simply wrong. Current language models often have built-in “guardrails” to align with human values, but these are imperfect. LLMs can also hallucinate plausible-sounding nonsense, or avoid offering perspectives we might actually want to hear.

    Staying vigilant is key

    We might prefer different models for different purposes. For example, since teacher-like LLMs synthesise and analyse vast amounts of web material, we may sometimes want their more opinionated perspective on a topic, such as on good books, world events or nutrition.

    Yet sometimes we may wish to explore specific and verifiable sources about a topic for ourselves. We may also prefer search tools to downrank some content – conspiracy theories, for example.

    LLMs make mistakes and can mislead with confidence. As these models become more central to search, we need to stay aware of their drawbacks, and demand transparency and accountability from tech companies on how information is delivered.

    Striking the right balance with search engine design and selection is no easy task. Too much control risks eroding individual choice and autonomy, while too little could leave harms unchecked.

    Our four ethical models offer a starting point for robust discussion. Further interdisciplinary research is crucial to define when and how search engines can be used ethically and responsibly.

    Damiano Spina has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

    Falk Scholer has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

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

    – ref. What makes a good search engine? These 4 models can help you use search in the age of AI – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-good-search-engine-these-4-models-can-help-you-use-search-in-the-age-of-ai-252927

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: PSNA calls on NZ govt to condemn renewed Israel air strikes on Gaza – 320 killed

    Asia Pacific Report

    A national Palestinian advocacy group has called on the Aotearoa New Zealand government to immediately condemn Israel for its resumption today of “genocidal attacks” on the almost 2 million Palestinians trapped in the besieged Gaza enclave.

    Media reports said that more than 320 people had been killed — many of them children — in a wave of predawn attacks by Israel to break the fragile ceasefire that had been holding since mid-January.

    The renewed war on Gaza comes amid a worsening humanitarian crisis that has persisted for 16 days since March 1.

    This followed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to block the entry of all aid and goods, cut water and electricity, and shut down the Strip’s border crossings at the end of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement.

    “Immediate condemnation of Israel’s resumption of attacks on Gaza must come from the New Zealand government”, said co-national chair John Minto of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) in a statement.

    “Israel has breached the January ceasefire agreement multiple times and is today relaunching its genocidal attacks against the Palestinian people of Gaza.”

    Israeli violations
    He said that in the last few weeks Israel had:

    • refused to negotiate the second stage of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas which would see a permanent ceasefire and complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza;
    • Issued a complete ban on food, water, fuel and medical supplies entering Gaza — “a war crime of epic proportions”; and
    • Cut off the electricity supply desperately needed to, for example, operate desalination plants for water supplies.

    ‘Cowardly silence’
    “The New Zealand government response has been a cowardly silence when the people of New Zealand have been calling for sanctions against Israel for its genocide,” Minto said.

    “The government is out of touch with New Zealanders but in touch with US/Israel.

    “Foreign Minister Winston Peters seems to be explaining his silence as ‘keeping his nerve’.

    Minto said that for the past 17 months, minister Peters had condemned every act of Palestinian resistance against 77 years of brutal colonisation and apartheid policies.

    “But he has refused to condemn any of the countless war crimes committed by Israel during this time — including the deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of war.

    “Speaking out to condemn Israel now is our opportunity to force it to reconsider and begin negotiations on stage two of the ceasefire agreement Israel is trying to walk away from.

    “Palestinians and New Zealanders deserve no less.”

    A Netanyahu “Wanted” sign at last Saturday’s pro-Palestinian rally in “Palestinian Corner”, Auckland . . . in reference to the International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued last November against the Israeli Prime Minister and former defence minister Yoav Gallant. Image: APR

    ‘Devastating sounds’
    Al Jazeera reporter Maram Humaid said from Gaza: “We woke up to the devastating sounds of multiple explosions as a series of air attacks targeted various areas across the Gaza Strip, from north to south, including Jabalia, Gaza City, Nuseirat, Deir el-Balah and Khan Younis.”

    Protesters picket outside the US Consulate in Auckland today in protest against Israel resuming air strikes on the besieged Gaza enclave. Image: Kathy Ross/APR

    “The strikes hit homes, residential buildings, schools sheltering displaced people and tents, resulting in a significant number of casualties, including women and children, especially since the attacks occurred during sleeping hours.

    The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza said at least 232 people had been killed in today’s Israeli raids.

    The Palestinian resistance group Hamas called on people of Arab and Islamic nations — and the “free people of the world” — to take to the streets in protest over the devastating attack.

    Hamas urged people across the world to “raise their voice in rejection of the resumption of the Zionist war of extermination against our people in the Gaza Strip”.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How Netflix has shaped (and shattered) our content landscape over the past decade – and what comes next

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Research Fellow, Media & Communication, RMIT University

    Shutterstock

    To mark 10 years since Netflix began operating in Australia, we and our colleagues at the Streaming Industries and Genres Network have published a report that looks at the state of Australia’s streaming industry today – and back at the platforms that have failed over the years.

    It once seemed like Netflix was the be-all and end-all of streaming in Australia. But a decade of competition with other streamers, and stress on local content, paint a very different picture.

    The streaming wars rage on

    Australia’s “streaming wars” kicked off in early 2015 with the arrival of Stan and Netflix, joining smaller players already on the scene. At the time, some industry insiders predicted the new streaming video-on-demand services would quickly consolidate – that there was room for only two major players: Netflix and one other.

    These early assumptions were proven wrong. Instead, Australia has sustained numerous streamers of different sizes, audiences and ownership. The larger, more generalist services such as Netflix, Prime Video and Disney+ compete directly with each other for exclusive content.

    Other niche genre players such as Shudder (horror) and Hayu (reality TV) have managed to stay afloat by catering to a specific audience segment and keeping their prices low.

    There have also been a few fatalities along the way. Quickflix and Presto were early to the market. Both services had gained considerable ground by 2014, with Quicklix leading the way. But they were eventually viewed as sluggish and limited in comparison to Netflix.

    Netflix always on top

    Netflix has always been the most popular streaming service in Australia. One million users had access to the platform within just three months of its arrival in 2015.

    In 2020, analytics firm Ampere Analysis identified Australia as the most highly-penetrated Netflix market in the world, then available in 63% of Australian homes, compared to 50% in the United States.

    In the first half of 2024, it was used by 67% of Australian adults, including some 800,000 people with an ad-tier subscription.

    The global behemoth has produced some notable local titles.

    In January of last year, the series adaptation of Boy Swallows Universe became Netflix’s most successful Australian-made show in its first two weeks on the platform.

    Later in April, the second season of the Heartbreak High reboot debuted at number one in Australia and stayed on the Global Top 10 English TV Series list for three consecutive weeks.



    Read more:
    Streaming, surveillance and the power of suggestion: the hidden cost of 10 years of Netflix

    Collectively, Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, Paramount+ and Stan spent A$225.2 million on 55 commissioned or co-commissioned Australian programs in the 2023–24 financial year.

    That said, their commitment to the local production sector over the last decade has been limited, as they have no obligation to invest in local content.

    A lack of regulation decimates local genres

    The lack of streaming regulation in Australia, alongside the gradual watering-down of commercial broadcaster obligations, has resulted in the collapse of investment in local content.

    Children’s TV, documentary, drama TV programming and Australian film have all suffered as a result.

    The introduction of multi-national streamers has radically shifted financing practices in Australia, leaving our production sector in distress.

    Last year, we partnered with ACMI to pull together a symposium where streaming industry insiders discussed the deeper implications of streaming on local genres, as well as the opportunities and challenges ahead.

    We heard from Andy Barclay, manager of business and legal affairs at Screen Producer Australia, who said the traditional “jigsaw puzzle” of finance planning based on international territories was all but gone in favour of major streamers offering full funding and “a little premium” upfront.

    But this comes at a cost, as the streamers then control global distribution and hold a tight grip on viewership data. It also means local production can become beholden to the whims of US business interests. As Barclay explain:

    These huge [streaming] companies, their Australian businesses […] we don’t drive their business decisions. It’s what happens over in the United States that drives their business decisions.

    Nonetheless, having fresh, cash-rich and risk-taking players in the Australian content market has led to opportunities for some local creators.

    As Sam Lingham of Australian comedy group Aunty Donna remarked on the same panel:

    Netflix, creatively, were pretty hands-off. We pitched them the show and they were like, ‘yeah, go do that’.

    What’s on the horizon?

    The streaming sector in Australia is now poised to splinter even further.

    Warner Bros Discovery will launch its streaming platform, Max, next week. It will be a real blow to the Foxtel-owned streamer, Binge, which has long touted its exclusive rights to much of the Warner catalogue.

    There are also concerns about the access and affordability of sport. This year, a new AFL broadcast agreement with Fox Sports and Channel Seven saw Saturday night games move behind a paywall. People will now need Kayo Sports or Foxtel to watch these games live.

    Big streamers have also entered the fray. Back in 2016, Netflix said it had no intention of investing in live sport. But we’re now seeing it and other players such as Prime Video, Apple TV+ and YouTube buy into sports rights around the world.

    According to Free TV Chief Executive Bridget Fair

    we saw it [in 2023] with Amazon hoovering up the whole of the World Cup cricket and it’s going to keep happening […] people who previously got a lot of stuff for free are going to have to start paying.

    Finally, many streamers – Netflix, Binge, Prime Video and Stan – have introduced or announced that they will introduce ad-tier subscriptions. Streamers can expect to see better profit margins on their advertising-supported offerings, compared to the monthly subscription model.

    Cheaper, ad-supported subscriptions may prove to be a popular option for viewers stacking multiple subscriptions. Already, 800,000 Australians have signed up to Netflix’s A$7.99 + ads option. But this does make for a disrupted, broadcast-like viewing experience (and one you still have to pay for).

    As the last 10 years of streaming in Australia has shown, the future can be hard to predict when it comes to new players entering established markets. One thing seems certain though – Netflix is here to stay.

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

    – ref. How Netflix has shaped (and shattered) our content landscape over the past decade – and what comes next – https://theconversation.com/how-netflix-has-shaped-and-shattered-our-content-landscape-over-the-past-decade-and-what-comes-next-251471

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: PNG’s Marape and NZ’s Luxon sign new partnership marking 50 years

    RNZ News

    The prime ministers of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea have signed a new statement of partnership marking 50 years of bilateral relations between the two countries.

    The document — which focuses on education, trade, security, agriculture and fisheries — was signed by Christopher Luxon and James Marape at the Beehive in Wellington last night.

    It will govern the relationship between the two countries through until 2029 and replaces the last agreement signed by Marape in 2021 with then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

    Marking the signing, Luxon announced $1 million would be allocated in response to Papua New Guinea’s aspirations to strengthen public sector institutions.

    “That funding will be able to support initiatives like strengthen cooperation between disaster preparedness institutions and also exchanging expertise in the governance of state owned enterprises in particular,” Luxon said.

    In his response Marape acknowledged the long enduring relationship between the government and peoples of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

    He said the new statement of partnership was an important blueprint on how the two countries would progress their relationship into the future.

    “Papua New Guinea brings to the table, as far as our relationship is concerned, our close proximity to Asia. We straddle the Pacific and Southeast Asia, we have an affinity to as much as our own affinity with our relations in the Pacific,” Marape said.

    “Our dual presence at APEC continues to ring [sic] home the fact that we belong to a family of nations and we work back to back on many fronts.”

    Meeting Peters
    Today, Marape will meet with Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters and leader of the opposition Chris Hipkins.

    Later in the week, Marape is scheduled to travel to Hamilton where he will meet with the NZ Papua New Guinea Business Council and with Papua New Guinea scholarship recipients at Waikato University.

    James Marape is accompanied by his spouse Rachael Marape and a ministerial delegation including Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko, Trade Minister Richard Maru, Minister for Livestock Seki Agisa and Higher Education Minister Kinoka Feo.

    This is Marape’s first official visit to New Zealand following his re-election as prime minister in the last national elections in 2022.

    According to the PNG government, the visit signals a growing relationship between the two countries, especially in trade and investment, cultural exchange, and the newly-added Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme that New Zealand has extended to Papua New Guineans to work in Aotearoa.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Budget delivers cheaper medicines and more bulk billing but leaves out long-term health reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Professor and Director, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University

    Less than two months from an election, the Albanese government last night presented a budget that aims to swing the voting pendulum its way.

    Headline health expenditure includes:

    • $8.5 billion to encourage more GP bulk billing and to train doctors and nurses
    • $1.7 billion to help public hospitals reduce their waiting lists
    • $644 million to establish 50 more urgent care clinics
    • $689 million to reduce the price of prescriptions to $25 for non-concessional patients
    • $793 million for women’s health, to provide greater access to contraception, treatment for urinary tract infections and greater access to perimenopause and menopause care.

    These announcements were already strategically made over the past month to maximise media coverage and build election momentum.

    Australians want more access to affordable health care – and the budget delivers this for many. But it doesn’t push the process of health reform forward, which is needed to secure the health system’s long-term sustainability.

    How does this compare to previous health budgets?

    While the budget contains large health expenditure items, a significant amount was not strictly new funding, but already provided for by the government.

    Consequently, the budget only allocates an additional $7.7 billion to health compared to actual spending for 2024-25.

    This increase aligns with steady long-term spending trends from previous years. It reflects a 6.6% increase in nominal spending (when inflation is included), but only a 3.9% increase in real spending (when inflation is taken out).

    Actual and estimated expenditure from the health portfolio

    Health spending as a proportion of the budget is reducing.
    Treasury

    The proportion of the budget spent on health could be considered historically low, projected to be 15.9% for 2025-26.

    It’s unclear whether Australians want more of the budget allocated to health, but there is certainly a need for greater investment.

    Will this health budget improve Australians’ health?

    The Albanese government is trying to kill three birds with one stone with this health budget. It wants to reduce the cost of living, improve health outcomes, and win an election.

    Keeping the cost of living down and improving health services are the top two most important issues for this election. Headline health announcements directly address these two issues.

    However, they also deliver a political benefit by shifting the media spotlight away from Opposition leader Peter Dutton. He was unable to legitimately counter attack headline health announcements given his unpopularity when he was a health minister. Instead, he promised to match some health announcements if elected.

    Increasing bulk-billing rates and reducing prescription prices will directly reduce out-of-pocket costs for many Australians. This will mostly be for people without a concession card.

    Increasing access to urgent care clinics will also help reduce cost of living pressures because they deliver services free of charge.

    Making health care cheaper for patients will also improve health outcomes. Many Australians sometimes choose not to access health care because of its cost, which can lead to worse health outcomes and expensive hospital care.

    The magnitude of any health improvement will depend on how patients respond to cheaper health care.

    More health benefit will go to patients who start seeing their GP rather than staying at home and trying to manage their condition themselves.

    The health benefit will be less for patients who start seeing their GP instead of an emergency department or urgent care clinic, because they are substituting one place of care for another.

    Is this good health policy?

    There is an “opportunity cost” every time the government spends money. Using the health budget to reduce the cost of living means less money to improve the health system elsewhere.

    In that context, this health budget has missed an opportunity to build a more sustainable health system.

    Medicare is not the best way to fund community care from GPs, nurses and allied health providers. It imposes barriers to establishing seamless multidisciplinary team-based care. These include restricting the types of services non-GP clinicians deliver, and not funding enough care coordination. People with chronic disease, such as diabetes and heart disease, often fall through the cracks and become sicker.

    A review of general practice incentives submitted to the health department last year recommended transition towards new funding models. This could include funding models that pay for a bundle of services delivered together as a team, rather than a fee for every service delivered by each team member.

    But payment reform is extremely hard. Medicare has not substantially changed since 1984 when it was first introduced.

    Given this budget allocated $7.9 billion to increase bulk billing alone, and $2.4 billion ongoing, this budget has a missed opportunity to start the payment reform process. This extra funding will reinforce current payment structures, and could have been used as leverage to get GPs over the line on reforming Medicare.

    The government also missed an opportunity to start reforming the health workforce. An independent review, also submitted last year, sought to improve access to primary care, improve care quality, and improve workforce productivity.

    It outlined 18 recommendations, including payment reform, to remove barriers to increase access to care delivered by multidisciplinary teams of doctors, nurses and allied health providers such as psychologists and physiotherapists.

    Again, there was nothing in this budget to suggest this will be pursued in 2025-26.

    What happens next?

    What next usually depends on which party wins the election.

    In this case, Dutton has agreed to match the health budget spending on bulk billing and price reductions for PBS scripts. But the Coalition has not committed to 50 more urgent care clinics.

    Whichever party wins, there is an urgent need to substantially reform health care if our health system is to remain one of the world’s best.



    Read more:
    At a glance: the 2025 federal budget

    Henry Cutler was a member of the Expert Advisory Panel that delivered its final review of general practice incentives mentioned in this article. He received remuneration from the Department of Health and Aged Care for this role.

    – ref. Budget delivers cheaper medicines and more bulk billing but leaves out long-term health reform – https://theconversation.com/budget-delivers-cheaper-medicines-and-more-bulk-billing-but-leaves-out-long-term-health-reform-251921

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristin Diemer, Associate Professor of Sociology, The University of Melbourne

    Journalist and activist Jess Hill’s Quarterly Essay argues Australia’s primary prevention framework to end violence against women isn’t working.

    Hill says the framework focuses too much on addressing gender inequality and changing attitudes, while overlooking crucial opportunities to address drivers of violence such as child maltreatment, alcohol and gambling.

    So what does the evidence say works to prevent violence against women?

    Australia’s plan to reduce and prevent violence

    The World Health Organisation RESPECT framework guides most global intervention programs and includes seven specific strategies to prevent violence against women:

    • Relationship skills strengthening
    • Empowerment of women
    • Services ensured
    • Poverty reduced
    • Environments (schools, workplaces, public spaces) made safe
    • Child and adolescent abuse prevented
    • Transformed attitudes, beliefs and norms.

    These are embedded in the 12 actions of Australia’s prevention framework, called Change the Story, but are not explicitly listed.

    The RESPECT strategies are also included in Australia’s National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032.

    Interventions are usually separated into three complementary, but overlapping approaches: primary (prevention), secondary (early intervention) and tertiary (responses).

    Primary prevention in Change the Story is aimed at addressing the underlying drivers of violence before it occurs. But most interventions have dual purposes of reducing or preventing current and future violence, as we transform into a violence-free community.

    Australia’s national plan includes reducing the harmful use of alcohol, support for children to live free from violence, holding perpetrators to account, changing the law, and promoting gender equality in public and private lives.

    Together, these strategies chip away at harmful underlying attitudes that drive domestic violence.

    Australia’s strategy for preventing violence against women includes holding perpetrators to account.
    Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

    What does the evidence say works?

    Systematic reviews of interventions to prevent or reduce violence against women and girls find that sufficient investment into the right programs can address the core drivers of violence and lead to a significant reduction and prevention of violence.

    The reviews identify that most successful interventions do not typically separate out prevention from early intervention and response. They focus on gender dynamics, power and control, and locally relevant social structures that disempower women and girls.

    The global program What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls, for example, reviewed 96 evaluations of interventions. Of these, seven interventions had positive effects across all three domains of responding to, reducing and preventing domestic violence.

    None of the effective interventions were the same, but they had common features.

    One of the common indicators of success was that they addressed multiple drivers of violence while being relevant to what was important in the participants’ lives, such as an intervention to reduce HIV or couples counselling. These two interventions were designed to challenge gender inequity and the use of violence, while empowering couples with improved communications skills.

    Effective interventions also commonly included support for survivors, for things such as mental health support, safe spaces, empowerment activities and mediation skills.

    Effective interventions incldue support for survivors and empowerment activites.
    Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock

    Equally important was including work with perpetrators or key influencers, such as other family members or local leaders. One example developed in Tajikistan involved in-laws, which enabled young women to attend and implement ideas from the program into their family life.

    The final two key components of successful interventions were related to implementation of the programs: having the ability to deliver the program with sufficient, well-trained and supported staff, and for a length of time allowing reflection and learning through experience.

    The Transforming Masculinities program in the Democratic Republic of Congo promoted gender equality and positive masculinity within faith communities. Careful selection of staff and volunteers was crucial to the intervention’s success.

    Effective interventions were delivered over 15 to 30 months. They included a combination of community activities and weekly workshops, allowing facilitators to build on content from previous sessions.

    Putting this all together, the most effective programs were rigorously planned and suitable to the client group. They focused on multiple core drivers of violence against women and girls. They worked with perpetrators and community influencers. They also worked with and supported survivors.

    Elements which prevented programs from being effective included short-term or inadequate funding, and a lack of sufficient planning to ensure the intervention was adapted to the client’s context.

    We have clear evidence about they types of programs that can prevent and reduce violence against women and girls, both internationally and in Australia. We also have service providers and program leaders who have been sharing evidence with governments for more than five decades. What we need now is the will and commitment for intensive programming.



    Read more:
    Despite some key milestones since 2000, Australia still has a long way to go on gender equality

    Kristin Diemer has received funding from the Australian Research Council, ANROWS, the Department of Social Services, the Victorian Government and is on the Advisory Group for the Australian National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey.

    – ref. What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says – https://theconversation.com/what-works-to-prevent-violence-against-women-heres-what-the-evidence-says-252873

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Is this the right budget for these economic times? We asked 5 experts

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers has described the income tax cuts in this week’s federal budget as a “top-up”. They will amount to roughly one cup of coffee a week for every taxpayer in the first year.

    But they will add another A$17 billion to the deficit over coming years, in addition to a raft of previously announced spending measures and very little savings.

    That is against a backdrop of the most uncertain global economic outlook since the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–08. Australia may face a real economic shock if trade wars trigger recessions in our major trading partners.

    We asked five experts if this is the right budget for these economic times. Only two agreed, with three saying much more is needed to address long-term structural debt and meaningful economic reform.

    – ref. Is this the right budget for these economic times? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/is-this-the-right-budget-for-these-economic-times-we-asked-5-experts-252922

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump silences Voice of America – end of a propaganda machine or void for China and Russia to fill?

    ANALYSIS: By Valerie A. Cooper, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Of all the contradictions and ironies of Donald Trump’s second presidency so far, perhaps the most surprising has been his shutting down the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) for being “radical propaganda”.

    Critics have long accused the agency — and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia — of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.

    But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of “anti-American ideas” and agendas — including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.

    Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.

    Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?

    Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex — as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.

    Public service or state propaganda?
     The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in Western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.

    Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.

    Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed — or even known — by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.

    The USAGM, for example, provides news in 63 languages to more than 100 countries. It has been credited with bringing attention to issues such as protests against covid-19 lockdowns in China and women’s struggles for equal rights in Iran.

    On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.

    Voice of America has been criticised for its focus on perceived ideological adversaries such as Russia and Iran. And my own research has found it perpetuates stereotypes and the neglect of African nations in its news coverage.

    Leaving a void
     Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.

    Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.

    The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.

    In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement.

    CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.

    Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.

    A Voice of America staffer protests outside the Washington DC offices on March 17, 2025, after employees were placed on administrative leave. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

    Other voices get louder
     The biggest concern for Western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind — including in the Pacific.

    Russia, China and Iran are increasing funding for their state-run news outlets, with China having spent more than US$6.6 billion over 13 years on its global media outlets. China Media Group is already one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, providing news content to more than 130 countries in 44 languages.

    And China has already filled media gaps left by Western democracies: after the ABC stopped broadcasting Radio Australia in the Pacific, China Radio International took over its frequencies.

    Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.

    An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.

    Switched off
     Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.

    This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.

    The American Foreign Service Association says it will challenge the dismantling of the USAGM, while the Czech Republic is seeking EU support to keep Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the air.

    But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week, The New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.

    Dr Valerie A. Cooper is lecturer in media and communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Protecting salmon farming at the expense of the environment – another step backwards for Australia’s nature laws

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillipa C. McCormack, Future Making Fellow, Environment Institute, University of Adelaide

    A bill introduced to parliament this week, if passed, would limit the government’s power to reconsider certain environment approvals when an activity is harming the environment.

    It fulfils Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s promise last month to introduce new laws to allow salmon farming to continue in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour. This salmon farming is currently mooted for reconsideration.

    There’s no doubt Australia’s nature laws need reform. The latest review found “Australians do not trust that the EPBC Act is delivering for the environment, for business or for the community”.

    But stopping the government from reconsidering a past decision is no way to fix these flaws. Reconsidering decisions is necessary if new evidence shows the activity is causing much more harm to nature, or a different kind of harm, than anticipated.

    Salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour

    Salmon have been farmed in Macquarie Harbour for almost 40 years, but activity has increased over the past decade.

    In 2012, Tasmania’s Department of Primary Industries sought approval to expand farming in the harbour, despite possible impacts on threatened species and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

    But then-Environment Minister, Tony Bourke, declared no further consideration was needed and the action could proceed, because the proposal was not
    “a controlled action”. Under the Act, a controlled action is any activity likely to impact on a matter of national environmental significance, such as a threatened species. A project or development deemed a controlled action then requires approval from the environment minister.

    However, Bourke’s decision was subject to conditions – most importantly, to ensure no significant impacts to the Maugean skate.

    In late 2023, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek received a series of requests to reconsider Bourke’s 2012 decision.

    New evidence comes to light

    The power to request a reconsideration is available to anyone. If substantial new information justifies it, the minister may revoke the original decision and make a new one.

    In the Macquarie Harbour case, these reconsideration requests relied on scientific studies completed after 2012. One highlighted the skate’s vulnerability to changing water conditions. Another released last month showed a strong correlation between more intense salmon farming and increased extinction risk for the skate.

    Plibersek has not made a decision yet. However, documents her office released under Freedom of Information laws show new evidence. This evidence supports a declaration that salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour should be reconsidered. That could trigger a full review of salmon farming in the Harbour.

    However, the bill Labor has introduced would strip the minister’s powers to reconsider the earlier decision.

    Prime minister promises law change to protect salmon farms, February 2025 (ABC News)

    What does the new bill propose?

    On Monday a government spokesperson said:

    This bill is very specific – it’s a minor change, with extremely strict criteria – focused on giving Tasmanian workers certainty while government investments protect the Maugean Skate. The existing laws apply to everything else, including all new proposals for coal, gas, and land clearing.

    But we disagree. The bill describes the circumstances in which the minister can reconsider a decision. These are cases (such as Macquarie Harbour) where an activity is allowed to proceed without full assessment and approval, in a “particular manner”. The “particular manner” must include complying with a state or territory management arrangement. For example, the salmon farmers have to comply with a Tasmanian government plan for Macquarie Harbour. Finally, these activities must be currently underway, and ongoing in that way, for at least five years.

    It is not uncommon for “particular manner” decisions to require compliance with state or territory management arrangements. So the new legislation will catch more than just the Macquarie Harbour project in the “net”.

    For instance, our quick search of the EPBC Act portal revealed a similar particular manner decision. This means that, after five years of operation, this second decision will also be immune from challenge.

    There would be more where that came from. The bill will not only protect salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour.

    What’s more, reconsideration powers have been used sparingly – there seems no reason to limit their use further. A search of the EPBC Act public portal reveals only 52 reconsideration requests since the Act began, averaging just two a year. Many of these requests were made by proponents, disgruntled with a “controlled action” decision made in relation to their own projects.

    One bad bill after another

    This may sound familiar, because Labor’s bill is similar to Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck’s private bill proposed in December, which also concerned protecting salmon farming jobs in Macquarie Harbour.

    The Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee made a single recommendation on that bill: that it not be passed.

    The majority report (from Labor, Greens and Independent senators) provided sensible reasons for recommending the bill be abandoned. It noted the power to request a reconsideration already has “appropriate safeguards”.

    Furthermore, these “safeguards strike an appropriate balance by providing industry with confidence and certainty that a decision made will not be easily reversed, while allowing decisions to be reconsidered should new and significant information relating to the decision arise”.

    Just four months later, these remain compelling reasons for maintaining the power to reconsider decisions.

    We don’t have time to go backwards

    This amendment will not achieve the comprehensive reforms the EPBC Act needs. In fact, it will actively undermine these goals. It has been rushed through after years of effort to improve nature laws, on the eve of an election, in a marginal electorate, and has been put to Parliament on the day of a budget lockup.

    Despite removing this scrutiny, the bill is unlikely to resolve the controversy in Macquarie Harbour.



    Read more:
    Labor’s dumping of Australia’s new nature laws means the environment is shaping as a key 2025 election issue

    Phillipa McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Environmental Science Program, Natural Hazards Research Australia, Green Adelaide and the ACT Government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and an affiliated member of the Centre for Marine Socioecology.

    Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

    – ref. Protecting salmon farming at the expense of the environment – another step backwards for Australia’s nature laws – https://theconversation.com/protecting-salmon-farming-at-the-expense-of-the-environment-another-step-backwards-for-australias-nature-laws-252814

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A $33 billion vote-grabber or real relief? Examining the Albanese government’s big housing pledge

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

    Man As Thep/Shutterstock

    The Australian housing market is in crisis: soaring prices, increasing rental stress, declining home ownership rates and a growing number of people experiencing homelessness.

    In response, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a $33 billion housing investment plan as part of his government’s latest budget.



    Read more:
    At a glance: the 2025 federal budget

    This is a central plank of Labor’s re-election pitch, aimed at showing housing commitment by:

    Making it easier to buy, better to rent, and building more homes faster.

    What are the key features of the plan?

    The plan includes two headline measures aimed at boosting housing supply and helping buyers:

    1-Expanding ‘Help to Buy’ for first-home buyers:

    The Help to Buy program provides shared-equity loans to first-time homebuyers so they can purchase properties with smaller deposits. Under this program, the government buys a portion of the property to lower the required mortgage amount for buyers.

    Under the initial terms of the scheme, the Commonwealth offered up to 30% of the price for existing homes and 40% for new constructions, while restricting eligibility to households within specific income and property value ranges.

    Now, the Albanese government has raised cap levels to enable more people to become eligible. The income ceiling for single buyers will increase from $90,000 to $100,000, while the maximum income limit for couples and single parents will rise from $120,000 to $160,000.

    These higher caps mean more than five million Australian properties would fall under the scheme’s scope, significantly expanding buyers’ choice.

    2-Investing in prefabricated and modular homes:

    In November 2024, the Albanese government announced a $900 million productivity fund to reward states and territories that boost housing supply by removing barriers to prefab and modular construction.

    And now, the Albanese government is budgeting another $54 million for the advanced manufacturing of prefab and modular housing industry. This includes $5 million to create a national certification system to streamline approvals and eliminate red tape.

    This aims to speed up home construction through off-site manufacturing technologies, which produce components in factories before assembling them on-site.

    Minister for Industry and Science Ed Husic claims these homes can be finished in half the time of conventional construction. Even a 20–30% time saving would be significant.

    These buildings are also more energy efficient, more resilient and cheaper.

    A crane lifts part of a modular home into place.
    benik.at/Shutterstock

    Can these measures fix the problem?

    The big picture problem is, Australia has simply not been building enough homes for its growing population.

    According to the Urban Development Institute of Australia’s State of the Land Report 2025, the federal government will fail (by 400,000 dwellings) to meet its target of constructing 1.2 million new homes by 2029.

    Prefab building methods make up just 8% of new housing developments in Australia.

    Some countries use it much more: Sweden boasts more than 100 years of prefab construction experience, where more than 80% of homes are produced in factories and then assembled at their destinations.

    Modular housing can be described as a promising step forward. But while they offer potential improvements in speed and cost efficiency, it cannot solve the massive housing deficit on its own without structural policy reforms in the near future.

    What about the Help to Buy scheme?

    Shared-equity loans tackle a different side of the problem: affordability for buyers.

    Experts describe Help to Buy as a “modest” but useful “piece of the puzzle” in solving the housing crisis.

    While its impact on general house prices and universal housing affordability is minimal, policymakers worry that programs like these unintentionally push up prices by boosting demand.

    Federal v state roles

    Housing policy in Australia is a shared responsibility.

    State governments control planning, zoning and most of the levers that determine how quickly homes can be approved and built (such as releasing land for development or approving apartment projects).

    The federal government mainly controls funding and high-level programs, so the success of the Albanese government’s plan will depend a lot on cooperation with the states and territories.

    However, there’s some inherent tension here: Canberra can set targets and provide incentives (funding), but it can’t directly build houses or force local councils to approve projects faster.

    That’s one reason behind the prefab certification idea: it removes one potential regulatory hurdle at a national level.

    Political timing

    The timing of this housing plan announcement is no coincidence.

    Australia will have a federal election by May 2025. Most voters will likely consider housing costs and cost-of-living to be primary issues.

    The expansion of Help to Buy enables Labor to target first-home buyers, which may be important in the election.

    The new housing plan is ambitious in scope and certainly a welcome effort to turn the tide on housing affordability.

    However, renters and prospective buyers are unlikely to experience quick benefits from these housing initiatives, as it will require sustained action and cooperation well beyond the upcoming election cycle.

    The Help to Buy program will begin later in 2025, and the positive effects of investing in prefabricated/modular housing will require a period of time before they become apparent.

    It is unclear whether these measures will effectively persuade voters and produce substantial improvements.

    Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organisations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding on integrated housing and climate policy comes from the James Martin Institute for Public Policy.

    – ref. A $33 billion vote-grabber or real relief? Examining the Albanese government’s big housing pledge – https://theconversation.com/a-33-billion-vote-grabber-or-real-relief-examining-the-albanese-governments-big-housing-pledge-252915

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Maritime truce would end a sorry war on the waves for Russia that set back its naval power ambitions

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Colin Flint, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Utah State University

    A warship is seen docked in the port of the Black Sea city of Sochi. Mikhail Mordasov/AFP via Getty Images

    Away from the grueling land battles and devastating airstrikes, the Ukraine war has from its outset had a naval element. Soon after the February 2022 invasion, Russia imposed a de facto naval blockade on Ukraine, only to see its fleet stunningly defeated during a contest for control of the Black Sea.

    But that war on the waves looks like it could be ending.

    Under the terms of a deal announced on March 25, 2025, by the U.S. and agreed upon in Saudi Arabia, both sides of the conflict committed to ensuring “safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea,” according to a White House statement.

    The naval aspect of the Ukraine war has gotten less attention than events on land and in the skies. But it is, I believe, a vital aspect with potentially far-reaching consequences.

    Not only have Russia’s Black Sea losses constrained Moscow’s ability to project power across the globe through naval means, it has also resulted in Russia’s growing cooperation with China, where Moscow is emerging as a junior party to Beijing on the high seas.

    Battle over the Black Sea

    The tradition of geopolitical theory has tended to paint an oversimplification of global politics. Theories harkening back to the late 19th century categorized countries as either land powers or maritime powers.

    Thinkers such as the British geopolitician Sir Halford Mackinder or the U.S. theorist Alfred Thayer Mahan characterized maritime powers as countries that possessed traits of democratic liberalism and free trade. In contrast, land powers were often portrayed as despotic and militaristic.

    While such generalizations have historically been used to demonize enemies, there is still a contrived tendency to divide the world into land and sea powers. An accompanying view that naval and army warfare is somewhat separate has continued.

    And this division gives us a false impression of Russia’s progress in the war with Ukraine. While Moscow has certainly seen some successes on land and in the air, that should not draw attention away from Russia’s stunning defeat in the Black Sea that has seen Russia have to retreat from the Ukrainian shoreline and keep its ships far away from the battlefront.

    As I describe in my recent book, “Near and Far Waters: The Geopolitics of Seapower,” maritime countries have two concerns: They must attempt to control the parts of the sea relatively close to their coastlines, or their “near waters”; meanwhile, those with the ability and desire to do so try to project power and influence into “far waters” across oceans, which are the near waters of other countries.

    The Black Sea is a tightly enclosed and relatively small sea comprising the near waters of the countries that surround it: Turkey to the south, Bulgaria and Romania to the west, Georgia to the east, and Ukraine and Russia to the north.

    Control of the Black Sea’s near waters has been contested throughout the centuries and has played a role in the current Russian-Ukraine war.

    Russia’s seizure of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 allowed it to control the naval port of Sevastopol. What were near waters of Ukraine became de facto near waters for Russia.

    Controlling these near waters allowed Russia to disrupt Ukraine’s trade, especially the export of grain to African far waters.

    But Russia’s actions were thwarted through the collaboration of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey to allow passage of cargo ships through their near waters, then through the Bosporus into the Mediterranean Sea.

    Ukraine’s use of these other countries’ near waters allowed it to export between 5.2 million and 5.8 million tons of grain per month in the first quarter of 2024. To be sure, this was a decline from Ukraine’s exports of about 6.5 million tons per month prior to the war, which then dropped to just 2 million tons in the summer of 2023 because of Russian attacks and threats. Prior to the announcement of the ceasefire, the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture had forecasted a decline in Ukrainian grain exports for 2025.

    But efforts to constrain Russia’s control of Ukraine’s near waters in the Black Sea, and Russia’s unwillingness to face the consequences of attacking ships in NATO countries’ near waters, meant Ukraine was still able to access far waters for economic gain and keep the Ukrainian economy afloat.

    For Putin, that sinking feeling

    Alongside being thwarted in its ability to disrupt Ukrainian exports, Russia has also come under direct naval attack from Ukraine. Since February 2022, using unmanned attack drones, Ukraine has successfully sunk or damaged Russian ships and whittled away at Russia’s Black sea fleet, sinking about 15 of its prewar fleet of about 36 warships and damaging many others.

    Russia has been forced to limit its use of Sevastopol and station its ships in the eastern part of the Black Sea. It cannot effectively function in the near waters it gained through the seizure of Crimea.

    Russia’s naval setbacks against Ukraine are only the latest in its historical difficulties in projecting sea power and its resulting tendency to mainly focus on the defense of near waters.

    In 1905, Russia was shocked by a dramatic naval loss to Japan. Yet even in cases where it was not outright defeated, Russian sea power has been continually constrained historically. In World War I, Russia cooperated with the British Royal Navy to limit German merchant activity in the Baltic Sea and Turkish trade and military reach in the Black Sea.

    In World War II, Russia relied on material support from the Allies and was largely blockaded within its Baltic Sea and Black Sea ports. Many ships were brought close to home or stripped of their guns as artillery or offshore support for the territorial struggle with Germany.

    During the Cold War, meanwhile, though the Soviet Union built fast-moving missile boats and some aircraft carriers, its reach into far waters relied on submarines. The main purpose of the Soviet Mediterranean fleet was to prevent NATO penetration into the Black Sea.

    And now, Russia has lost control of the Black Sea. It cannot operate in these once secure near waters. These losses reduce its ability to project naval power from the Black Sea and into the Mediterranean Sea.

    Ceding captaincy to China

    Faced with a glaring loss in its backyard and put in a weak position in its near waters, Russia as a result can project power to far waters only through cooperation with a China that is itself investing heavily in a far-water naval capacity.

    Joint naval exercises in the South China Sea in July 2024 are evidence of this cooperation. Wang Guangzheng of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy’s Southern Theater said of the drill that “the China-Russia joint patrol has promoted the deepening and practical cooperation between the two in multiple directions and fields.” And looking forward, he claimed the exercise “effectively enhanced the ability to the two sides to jointly respond to maritime security threats.”

    Warships of the Chinese and Russian navies take part in a joint naval exercise in the East China Sea.
    Li Yun/Xinhua via Getty Images

    This cooperation makes sense in purely military terms for Russia, a mutually beneficial project of sea power projection. But it is largely to China’s benefit.

    Russia can help China’s defense of its northern near waters and secure access to far waters through the Arctic Ocean – an increasingly important arena as global climate change reduces the hindrance posed by sea ice. But Russia remains very much the junior partner.

    Moscow’s strategic interests will be supported only if they match Chinese interests. More to the point, sea power is about power projection for economic gain. China will likely use Russia to help protect its ongoing economic reach into African, Pacific, European and South American far waters. But it is unlikely to jeopardize these interests for Russian goals.

    To be sure, Russia has far-water economic interests, especially in the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa. And securing Russian interests in Africa complements China’s growing naval presence in the Indian Ocean to secure its own, and greater, global economic interests. But cooperation will still be at China’s behest.

    For much of the Ukraine war, Russia has been bottled up in its Black Sea near waters, with the only avenue for projecting its naval power coming through access to Africa and Indian Ocean far waters – and only then as a junior partner with China, which dictates the terms and conditions.

    A maritime deal with Ukraine now, even if it holds, will not compensate for Russia’s ongoing inability to project power across the oceans on its own.

    Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article originally published by The Conversation U.S. on Oct. 3, 2024.

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

    – ref. Maritime truce would end a sorry war on the waves for Russia that set back its naval power ambitions – https://theconversation.com/maritime-truce-would-end-a-sorry-war-on-the-waves-for-russia-that-set-back-its-naval-power-ambitions-253089

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Podcasting was once a rebel medium for diverse voices. Now it’s slowly being consumed by big media

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Corey Martin, Lecturer/Podcast Producer, Swinburne University of Technology

    Shutterstock

    Podcasting was once the underdog of the media world: a platform where anyone with a microphone and an idea could share their voice.

    With low barriers to entry and freedom from institutional gatekeeping, it promised to amplify marginalised voices and allow underrepresented groups to tell their own stories, on their own terms.

    Today, however, this promise seems increasingly strained as corporate interests tighten their grip on the industry. As money flows in, the podcasting space is beginning to resemble the rest of the digital media world – driven by advertising revenues and political polarisation.

    The promise of podcasting

    Six years ago, audio scholars Martin Spinelli and Lance Dann described podcasting as a “revolutionary” medium for its ability to inspire empathy through innovative forms of audio.

    Podcasting was heralded as a format that broke through the barriers of traditional media by offering new ways to engage with underrepresented voices and ideas. Media and cultural studies pointed to the direct-to-ear delivery – free from the biases of visual culture – as a uniquely intimate way to consume content.

    Globally, the industry boomed as a result of pandemic lockdowns, with the number of podcasts on Spotify skyrocketing from 450,000 in 2019, to 1.5 million in 2020.

    Listenership has also surged in Australia. According to a 2024 report by Edison Research, we’ve seen a 20% increase in listenership from 2022 to 2024 – with 48% of the those aged 12 and above having listened to a podcast within the past month.

    From open space to rat race

    In his 2024 book Podcasting in a Platform Age, podcast researcher John Sullivan warns the podcasting space is being increasingly dominated by a handful of powerful media companies that dictate what and who gets visibility.

    Larger podcasts with higher production budgets, celebrity hosts and backing from major networks are attracting larger audiences, with independent creators struggling to get a foot in the door.

    At the time of writing, of the top 50 most popular podcasts in Australia, more than half (52%) come from overseas, and primarily the United States.

    Of the 24 Australian-made podcasts on the list, 80% are backed by a media organisation, with most (64%) connected to major networks such as LiSTNR, which is owned by Southern Cross Austereo. Only 12% of the Australian podcasts on the list come from truly independent creators without any corporate funding or major production support.

    Why does it matter that large-network ownership is on the rise? To understand this, it helps to first understand how ads keep podcast networks in business – and how this can impact content decisions.

    Deepening ideological divides

    Advertisers follow the crowds. In a podcasting context, this means they’re more likely to funnel their dollars into large networks, further bolstering their resources.

    At the same time, networks want to drive as many ears to their ad sponsors as possible. To do this, they focus on producing content they know will get the most engagement.

    The result is a vicious cycle in which attention and advertising power feed each other, making it even harder for independent voices to break through. Over time, this feedback loop can lead to less content diversity and more polarisation.

    According to Spotify’s 2024 Wrapped, American podcaster Joe Rogan took out the top podcast spot for the fifth year in a row globally.
    Shutterstock

    It’s here that we’re seeing an increase of politicians using podcasts to push their views and cultivate ideological loyalty.

    In the lead-up to the 2024 US election, Kamala Harris appeared on Call Her Daddy (the second most popular Spotify podcast in 2024), while Donald Trump was on The Joe Rogan Experience (the most popular). Both interviews were later fact-checked and found to contain false or misleading claims.

    Trump’s interview in particular was flagged by CNN for having 32 false claims. Nonetheless, analysts and researchers pointed to it as a driver behind his success with young male voters.

    The political podcasting trend is also playing out in Australia ahead of the next federal election.

    Late last year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton appeared on the podcast Diving Deep With Sam Fricker. This was followed by an appearance on Straight Talk, hosted by businessman Mark Bouris, in January.

    More recently, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Greens leader Adam Bandt separately appeared on It’s A Lot with Abbie Chatfield.



    Read more:
    Misinformation is rife and causing deeper polarisation – here’s how social media users can help curb it

    Diversity in the podcasting space

    According to 2022 Pew Research Centre data, 55% of Americans said their major reason for listening to podcasts was “to learn”, while 29% said they wanted to stay up-to-date with current affairs. But information-hungry listeners may be getting shortchanged, as podcasts are less likely to be fact-checked against the same editorial standards that govern traditional media.

    As platform researcher Michael Bossetta notes, although large platforms such as Spotify have the potential to create a more informed world, they
    are more likely to push content that keeps users hooked (that is, content they already enjoy and/or agree with).

    Recommender algorithms also have a role to play. One 2020 study found that while Spotify’s personalised suggestions increased user engagement by 28.90%, they also reduced the individual-level diversity of podcast streams by 11.51%.

    But platforms do have the power to do better. They could, for instance, use their algorithms to prioritise content diversity. This would help ease the “engagement-diversity trade-off”, in which personalisation increases engagement, but limits the diversity of content consumed by an individual.

    That said, it’s unlikely platforms will voluntarily change the way they operate. If meaningful reforms are to happen, they will more likely have to come from government regulations or through independent governing bodies.

    In the meantime, listeners aren’t powerless. While we can’t stop algorithms from pushing certain content to the top of our feeds, we can disrupt them by actively seeking out independent voices and diverse stories.

    Corey Martin 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. Podcasting was once a rebel medium for diverse voices. Now it’s slowly being consumed by big media – https://theconversation.com/podcasting-was-once-a-rebel-medium-for-diverse-voices-now-its-slowly-being-consumed-by-big-media-252169

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –