ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on July 12, 2025.
NFIP activists, advocates to open nuclear-free Pacific exhibition Asia Pacific Report Nuclear-free and independent Pacific advocates are treating Aucklanders to a lively week-long exhibition dedicated to the struggle for nuclear justice in the region. It will be opened today by the opposition Labour Party’s spokesperson on disarmament and MP for Te Atatu, Phil Twyford, and will include a range of speakers on Aotearoa
Hendra virus has killed a horse in Queensland. Should we be worried? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vinod Balasubramaniam, Associate Professor (Molecular Virology), Monash University CJKPhoto/Getty The death of an unvaccinated horse from Hendra virus this week in southeast Queensland is the state’s first reported case in three years. Before that, Australia’s last case was in July 2023, when another unvaccinated horse died in
The ACT wants dog owners to spend 3 hours a day with their pet. But quality, not quantity, matters most Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hazel, Associate Professor, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide Photo by Anna Tarazevich/Pexels Authorities in the ACT have released draft regulations for the welfare of dogs. One inclusion getting attention is a guideline “requiring all dogs to have a minimum of three hours
What is cannabis use disorder? And how do you know if you have a problem? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Dawson, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology and National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland Around 41% of Australians report they’ve used cannabis at some point in their life. Research estimates that 22% of recreational cannabis consumers meet criteria for a cannabis use
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on July 12, 2025.
NFIP activists, advocates to open nuclear-free Pacific exhibition Asia Pacific Report Nuclear-free and independent Pacific advocates are treating Aucklanders to a lively week-long exhibition dedicated to the struggle for nuclear justice in the region. It will be opened today by the opposition Labour Party’s spokesperson on disarmament and MP for Te Atatu, Phil Twyford, and will include a range of speakers on Aotearoa
Hendra virus has killed a horse in Queensland. Should we be worried? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vinod Balasubramaniam, Associate Professor (Molecular Virology), Monash University CJKPhoto/Getty The death of an unvaccinated horse from Hendra virus this week in southeast Queensland is the state’s first reported case in three years. Before that, Australia’s last case was in July 2023, when another unvaccinated horse died in
The ACT wants dog owners to spend 3 hours a day with their pet. But quality, not quantity, matters most Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hazel, Associate Professor, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide Photo by Anna Tarazevich/Pexels Authorities in the ACT have released draft regulations for the welfare of dogs. One inclusion getting attention is a guideline “requiring all dogs to have a minimum of three hours
What is cannabis use disorder? And how do you know if you have a problem? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Dawson, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology and National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland Around 41% of Australians report they’ve used cannabis at some point in their life. Research estimates that 22% of recreational cannabis consumers meet criteria for a cannabis use
Nuclear-free and independent Pacific advocates are treating Aucklanders to a lively week-long exhibition dedicated to the struggle for nuclear justice in the region.
It will be opened today by the opposition Labour Party’s spokesperson on disarmament and MP for Te Atatu, Phil Twyford, and will include a range of speakers on Aotearoa New Zealand’s record as a champion of a nuclear-free Pacific and an independent foreign policy.
Speaking at a conference last month, Twyford said the country could act as a force for peace and demilitarisation, working with partners across the Pacific and Asia and basing its defence capabilities on a realistic assessment of threats.
The biggest threat to the security of New Zealanders was not China’s rise as a great power but the possibility of war in Asia, Twyford said.
Although there have been previous displays about the New Zealand nuclear-free narrative, this one has a strong focus on the Pacific.
Veteran nuclear-free Pacific spokespeople who are expected to speak at the conference include Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Bharat Jamnadas, an organiser of the original Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) conference in Suva, Fiji, in 1975; businessman and community advocate Nikhil Naidu, previously an activist for the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG) and Dr Heather Devere, peace researcher and chair of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).
A group of Cook Islands young dancers will also take part.
Knowledge to children One of the organisers, Nik Naidu, told Asia Pacific Report, it was vital to restore the enthusiasm and passion around the NFIP movement as in the 1980s.
“It’s so important to pass on our knowledge to our children and future generations,” he said.
“And to tell the stories of our on-going journey and yearning for true independence in a world free of wars and weapons of mass destruction. This is what a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific is.”
One of the many nuclear-free posters at the exhibition. Image: APR
The exhibition is is coordinated by the APMN in partnership with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, with curator Tharron Bloomfield and coordinator Antony Phillips; Ellen Melville Centre; and the Whānau Communty Centre and Hub.
It is also supported by Pax Christi, Quaker Peace and Service Fund, and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).
It recalls New Zealand’s peace squadrons, a display of activist tee-shirt “flags”, nuclear-free buttons and badges, posters, and other memorabilia.
“It is a sort of back to the future situation where the world is waking up again to a nuclear spectre not really seen since the Cold War years,” he said.
“With the horrendous Israeli genocide on Gaza — it is obscene to call it a war, when it is continuous massacres of civilians; the attacks by two nuclear nations on a nuclear weapons-free country, as is the case with Iran; and threats against another nuclear state, China, are all extremely concerning developments.”
“Heroes” and “Villains” of the Pacific . . . part of the exhibition. Image: APR
Nuclear-free and independent Pacific advocates are treating Aucklanders to a lively week-long exhibition dedicated to the struggle for nuclear justice in the region.
It will be opened today by the opposition Labour Party’s spokesperson on disarmament and MP for Te Atatu, Phil Twyford, and will include a range of speakers on Aotearoa New Zealand’s record as a champion of a nuclear-free Pacific and an independent foreign policy.
Speaking at a conference last month, Twyford said the country could act as a force for peace and demilitarisation, working with partners across the Pacific and Asia and basing its defence capabilities on a realistic assessment of threats.
The biggest threat to the security of New Zealanders was not China’s rise as a great power but the possibility of war in Asia, Twyford said.
Although there have been previous displays about the New Zealand nuclear-free narrative, this one has a strong focus on the Pacific.
Veteran nuclear-free Pacific spokespeople who are expected to speak at the conference include Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Bharat Jamnadas, an organiser of the original Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) conference in Suva, Fiji, in 1975; businessman and community advocate Nikhil Naidu, previously an activist for the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG) and Dr Heather Devere, peace researcher and chair of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).
A group of Cook Islands young dancers will also take part.
Knowledge to children One of the organisers, Nik Naidu, told Asia Pacific Report, it was vital to restore the enthusiasm and passion around the NFIP movement as in the 1980s.
“It’s so important to pass on our knowledge to our children and future generations,” he said.
“And to tell the stories of our on-going journey and yearning for true independence in a world free of wars and weapons of mass destruction. This is what a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific is.”
One of the many nuclear-free posters at the exhibition. Image: APR
The exhibition is is coordinated by the APMN in partnership with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, with curator Tharron Bloomfield and coordinator Antony Phillips; Ellen Melville Centre; and the Whānau Communty Centre and Hub.
It is also supported by Pax Christi, Quaker Peace and Service Fund, and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).
It recalls New Zealand’s peace squadrons, a display of activist tee-shirt “flags”, nuclear-free buttons and badges, posters, and other memorabilia.
“It is a sort of back to the future situation where the world is waking up again to a nuclear spectre not really seen since the Cold War years,” he said.
“With the horrendous Israeli genocide on Gaza — it is obscene to call it a war, when it is continuous massacres of civilians; the attacks by two nuclear nations on a nuclear weapons-free country, as is the case with Iran; and threats against another nuclear state, China, are all extremely concerning developments.”
“Heroes” and “Villains” of the Pacific . . . part of the exhibition. Image: APR
Almost 60 years after former prime minister Harold Holt began to dismantle the White Australia Policy, The Neighbour at the Gate at Sydney’s National Art School Gallery presents a thoughtful examination of the consequences when good neighbours become good friends.
Street posters promoting the exhibition feature an image of a magpie. Advertising always distorts. Pardu (Tirritpa) by James Tylor, who has Kaurna and Mãori heritage, is a series of groupings of exquisite small bird daguerreotypes. Their shadowed silver surface gives the impression of antiquity, which is Tylor’s intention.
In Kaurna, the names of birds come from the songs they sing. This is also how birds are named in many Asian languages. Onomatopoeia makes a bridge between cultures. A QR code on the wall next to each grouped images of birds allows the viewer to hear blends of birdsong with human music.
The visitor enters the exhibition through Imaginary Homelands, Jacky Cheng’s installation in the shape of a traditional Chinese paifang (牌坊).
The 1,110 strips of paper, with fragments of Chinese characters, represent a poem she learnt as child in Kuala Lumpur. But some of the language has been lost by the distortions of time. She now lives on Yawuru country (Broome), an Australian town with close links to many South East Asian cultures.
In remembering her past, she grasps elements of her Malay Chinese heritage.
Dennis Golding’s Bingo is possibly as fragmented a memory as Cheng’s. Golding, a Kamilaroi/Gamilaraay man, has made a tribute to the community space his Nan and Aunty created in an abandoned terrace house in the Block at Redfern, where at night they would play bingo.
Each of the etchings scattered across the wall is the size of brick; each quotes small details of community life in Redfern before it was “discovered” by the gentrifiers. The exquisite etchings appear to be scattered at random, but a careful look will show the word “Bingo” in white in the spaces on the wall.
Elham Eshraghian-Haakansson’s God of War is a beautiful and sensual video on love, rage, reconciliation and the emotional journey of being a refugee.
Eshraghian-Haakansson is a second generation Iranian-Australian whose work is shaped in part by the experience of her mother and grandmother, whose Baha’i faith placed them in peril in 1979 after the Ayatollahs seized power. The different segments of this elegant video are deliberately broken by rough insertions, giving it a sense of a work reclaimed from history.
Along the water
Jenna Mayilema Lee’s complex installation in three parts is both a universal statement on the integration that is the long-term consequence of the meeting of cultures, and a personal statement on her own circumstances.
Each component – the photographic mural, the video and the billabong sculpture – can be seen as an independent work, but when combined they form magic.
Lee is truly a modern Australian, descended from Gulumerridjin (Larrakia), Wardaman, KarraJarri people as well as having Japanese, Filipino, Chinese and Anglo ancestors.
The lotus sculptures in the billabong are constructed from copies of immigration documentation. Her Chinese ancestors were living in Australia well before the White Australia policy of 1901. When they needed to travel, bureaucracy demanded multiple forms.
She has layered the forms with a hand print from one of her Japanese ancestors which, much to her pleasure, she discovered is the same size as her own hand.
The billabongs of northern Australia, especially in Larrakia country, are filled with lotus plants. The ancestors of the lotus plants of northern Australia floated across the narrow seas from Asia many years ago, in much the same way as people.
Water does not always bring life. James Nguyen’s Homeopathies_where new trees grow, is a reminder of another consequence of colonisation.
As with many other Vietnamese Australians, his family lives near the Parramatta and Duck rivers, west of central Sydney. One of the horrors of the Vietnam war was the way Agent Orange, destroyed both the jungle and the lives of people who came into contact with it.
Agent Orange was made by Union Carbide, near the Parramatta River. When the factory closed the contaminated site was not properly sealed and the poison seeped into the river.
Nguyen’s giant floating textile is of made of raw cotton and silk strips, dyed with mud and weeds contaminated by dioxin and Agent Orange. The evil of contamination is countered by clay pinchpot incense holders which line the stairs and entrances to the exhibition.
The cleansing smoke of incense is another link between the cultures of Asia and those of Australia’s First Nations people.
The Neighbour at the Gate is a generous and inclusive exhibition, a reminder of a common humanity. Clothilde Bullen, who heads the curatorium with Micheal Do and Zali Morgan, sees art as a way of countering divisions in society.
She told me:
If we are to work as a society and if we are to work as a community then we have to call people in, and we have to be prepared to embrace that difference. And so that is really what this show is all about.
The Neighbour at the Gate is at the National Art School Galleries, Sydney, until October 18.
Joanna Mendelssohn has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council
Authorities in the ACT have released draft regulations for the welfare of dogs. One inclusion getting attention is a guideline “requiring all dogs to have a minimum of three hours of human contact daily”.
The purpose of this code is to help dog owners meet their obligations under existing animal welfare laws in the ACT, which see dogs as sentient animals. This recognises that dogs can experience pleasure and pain, and that these feelings matter.
If we accept dogs are sentient then we must think about their welfare and how to provide for them the best life possible. So, will three hours of human contact guarantee a good life?
Three hours across a 24-hour period is probably achievable for many people, once you factor in walks, pats, feeding time and some attention at home.
But just mandating a certain number of hours isn’t the answer, in my view.
What matters most is what you do when you’re with your dog to meet their specific emotional and physical needs – and how long you’re leaving them alone.
Human contact is a good thing for dogs
Countries around the world are taking more notice of the needs of dogs.
In Germany, the law requires owners to walk their dogs twice a day for at least an hour each time.
Swedish rules require that “dogs must have their need for social contact satisfied”.
Dogs are descended from the grey wolf – an animal which would certainly not integrate easily into a human group.
But over thousands of years, humans have selectively bred dogs so they want, and even depend on, human contact.
We’ve genetically selected dogs to want to be with us, and unfortunately this has led to many not coping well when they’re alone.
The ACT’s new draft code recognises this, noting that “dogs are social animals and must not be kept alone for long periods of time”.
It is likely the quality of time spent with our dogs is more important than the quantity.
Some dogs like lying on the sofa bingeing the latest series with you. Others might prefer long walks, or a strenuous game of fetch.
And dogs have different needs. A one-year-old dog might love going for a big walk, but a 12-year-old dog with arthritis may find that painful. Some dogs love chasing balls, and others would rather watch grass grow.
What’s more, the amount of time a dog can handle alone will depend on the animal. For some, only five minutes away from their human would be long enough to send them into total meltdown.
What’s important is what you do with your dog when you’re together, to meet their needs.
Complicating matters further, dog owners vary in how they want to spend time with their pet.
That’s why this guideline may struggle to find community acceptance. Good dog owners realise that what you do with your dog is most important, and needs to be tailored to the dog’s emotional needs, rather than just mandating a certain time goal.
That said, the draft code may prompt all dog owners (including not-so-conscientious ones) to consider whether they spend enough time with their dogs.
And it may prompt people considering buying a dog to think about whether they can commit three hours a day.
The regulation may also encourage people to think more about fun things to do with their dog, such as develop (or continue) a play routine. Creative play can help boost attachment between dog and human.
An easy bonus we can give our dogs is to be present with them.
If you can’t manage three hours, just aim for what you can and try to carve out special time with them (perhaps by reducing your screen time where possible).
The most important part is to see if you can observe what happens when they’re alone (you could set up a camera). Try to make changes and seek professional advice if you can see their welfare is at risk.
It is highly unlikely sufficient resourcing would be available in the ACT to check the time all dog-owners spend with their dogs each day. How this would be calculated and recorded remains unclear.
But even if this three-hours-a-day guideline is dropped in the ACT’s final code, it’s prompted an important discussion and will overall improve the welfare of dogs.
Susan Hazel is affiliated with the RSPCA South Australia and the Dog & Cat Management Board of South Australia.
The death of an unvaccinated horse from Hendra virus this week in southeast Queensland is the state’s first reported case in three years.
Before that, Australia’s last case was in July 2023, when another unvaccinated horse died in New South Wales.
The new incident is a stark reminder that, while rare, this persistent virus poses a deadly threat to both animals and humans.
So, what is Hendra virus? And how is it passed on? Here’s what you need to know.
What is Hendra virus?
Hendra virus is found only in Australia. It is named after the Brisbane suburb Hendra, where it was first identified in 1994 – an outbreak that killed 13 horses and one human.
Hendra is a highly pathogenic virus, meaning it causes severe, often fatal illness.
It is a kind of henipavirus, which belongs to the large family of Paramyxoviridae. Henipaviruses such as Hendra are zoonotic, which means they occur naturally in animals but can also be passed on to humans.
Australia’s native flying foxes or fruit bats (the genus Pteropus) are Hendra’s natural “reservoir host”. They carry the virus without symptoms.
Outbreaks occur when the virus is transmitted to horses and occasionally to humans through infected horses. It is not known to affect other animals.
Can humans get Hendra?
Although alarming, human cases of Hendra virus remain exceedingly rare. Only seven confirmed cases have been reported since 1994, resulting in four deaths.
Each human case occurred after close contact with an infected horse or horses.
Those who contracted Hendra were typically veterinarians or horse trainers exposed to blood, mucus or other bodily fluids while caring for the horse or determining its cause of death.
Direct transmission of Hendra from bats to humans, or between humans, has not been documented.
How does it spread?
Hendra exists year-round in flying fox populations, who shed virus particles in bodily fluids, but don’t get sick themselves.
Horses mainly become infected through grass, feed or drinking water that has been contaminated by flying fox saliva, urine or feces. Although horse-to-horse transmission is possible, it is not common.
An infected horse will show rapid symptoms including:
fever
breathing difficulties
nasal discharge
increased heart rate
neurological signs, such as muscle twitching, loss of coordination, and disorientation.
The infection progresses rapidly. In around 75% of cases, death follows within 48 to 72 hrs of symptoms beginning.
Around 75–80% of infected horses either die naturally or are euthanised due to welfare concerns. This high death rate underscores the need for preventive measures.
Vaccination is the main way to prevent infection in horses. No vaccinated horses have developed the disease since a highly effective vaccine became available in 2012.
Veterinary authorities strongly recommend vaccination for horses, especially in Queensland and northern New South Wales, regions historically affected by the virus.
Other preventive measures include: placing feed and water containers away from areas frequented by flying foxes, regular stable cleaning, and keeping horses in stables overnight during months when bats are most active.
This is typically May to October, sometimes known as “Hendra season”. But there are signs climate change and habitat destruction may be changing when and where flying foxes roost and potentially worsening the risk of outbreak.
Have you ever stopped by the grocery store on your way to a dinner party to grab a bottle of wine? Did you grab the first one you saw, or did you pause to think about the available choices and deliberate over where you wanted your gift to be from?
The people who lived in western Iran around 11,000 years ago had the same idea – but in practice it looked a little different. In our latest research, my colleagues and I studied the remains of ancient feasts at Asiab in the Zagros Mountains where people gathered in communal celebration.
The feasters left behind the skulls of 19 wild boars, which they packed neatly together and sealed inside a pit within a round building. Butchery marks on the boar skulls show the animals were used for feasting, but until now we did not know where the animals came from.
By examining the microscopic growth patterns and chemical signatures inside the tooth enamel of five of these boars, we found at least some of them had been brought to the site from a substantial distance away, transported over difficult mountainous terrain. Bringing these boars to the feast – when other boars were available locally – would have taken an enormous amount of effort.
A big feast from before the dawn of agriculture
Feasting activities are widely documented in the archaeological record, primarily from communities that rely on agriculture to generate a food surplus. In fact, it has been suggested feasting may have been a driving force behind the adoption of agriculture, although this theory has been widely debated.
While evidence from after the adoption of agriculture is plentiful from all reaches of the globe, evidence pre-dating agriculture is more sparse.
What is special about the feast at Asiab is not only its early date and that it brought together people from wider reaches of the region. It is the fact that people who participated in this feast invested substantial amounts of effort, so that their contributions involved an element of geographic symbolism.
Food and culture
Food and long-standing culinary traditions form an integral component of cultures all over the globe. It is for this reason that holidays, festivals, and other socially meaningful events commonly involve food.
We cannot imagine Christmas without the Christmas meal, for example, or Eid without the food gifts, or Passover without matzo ball soup.
What’s more, food makes for gifts that are highly appreciated. The more a food item is reminiscent of a specific country or location, the better. It is for this reason that cheese from France, crocodile jerky from Australia, and black chicken from Korea make for good currency in the world of gift giving.
Just like today, people who lived in the past noticed the importance of reciprocity and place, and formulated customs to celebrate them publicly.
At ancient feasts at Stonehenge, for example, research has shown people ate pigs brought from wide reaches of Britain. Our new findings provide the first glimpse of similar behaviour in a pre-agricultural context.
How to read a tooth
Did you know that teeth grow like trees? Much like trees and their annual growth rings, teeth deposit visible layers of enamel and dentine during growth.
These growth layers track daily patterns of development and changes in the dietary intake of certain chemical elements. In our study, we sliced the teeth of wild boars from Asiab in a way that allowed us to count these daily growth layers under the microscope.
We then used this information to measure the composition of enamel secreted at approximately weekly intervals. The variability in the isotopic ratios we measured suggests at least some of the wild boars used in the feast at Asiab came from considerable distance: possibly from at least 70 km, or two or more days’ travel.
The most likely explanation is that they were hunted in farther reaches of the region and transported to the site as contributions to the feast.
Reciprocity is at the heart of social interactions. Just like a thoughtfully chosen bottle of wine does today, those boars brought from far and wide may have served to commemorate a place, an event and social bonds through gift-giving.
The work was funded by Early Career Research grants from Griffith University and the Society for Archaeological Science.
Have you ever stopped by the grocery store on your way to a dinner party to grab a bottle of wine? Did you grab the first one you saw, or did you pause to think about the available choices and deliberate over where you wanted your gift to be from?
The people who lived in western Iran around 11,000 years ago had the same idea – but in practice it looked a little different. In our latest research, my colleagues and I studied the remains of ancient feasts at Asiab in the Zagros Mountains where people gathered in communal celebration.
The feasters left behind the skulls of 19 wild boars, which they packed neatly together and sealed inside a pit within a round building. Butchery marks on the boar skulls show the animals were used for feasting, but until now we did not know where the animals came from.
By examining the microscopic growth patterns and chemical signatures inside the tooth enamel of five of these boars, we found at least some of them had been brought to the site from a substantial distance away, transported over difficult mountainous terrain. Bringing these boars to the feast – when other boars were available locally – would have taken an enormous amount of effort.
A big feast from before the dawn of agriculture
Feasting activities are widely documented in the archaeological record, primarily from communities that rely on agriculture to generate a food surplus. In fact, it has been suggested feasting may have been a driving force behind the adoption of agriculture, although this theory has been widely debated.
While evidence from after the adoption of agriculture is plentiful from all reaches of the globe, evidence pre-dating agriculture is more sparse.
What is special about the feast at Asiab is not only its early date and that it brought together people from wider reaches of the region. It is the fact that people who participated in this feast invested substantial amounts of effort, so that their contributions involved an element of geographic symbolism.
Food and culture
Food and long-standing culinary traditions form an integral component of cultures all over the globe. It is for this reason that holidays, festivals, and other socially meaningful events commonly involve food.
We cannot imagine Christmas without the Christmas meal, for example, or Eid without the food gifts, or Passover without matzo ball soup.
What’s more, food makes for gifts that are highly appreciated. The more a food item is reminiscent of a specific country or location, the better. It is for this reason that cheese from France, crocodile jerky from Australia, and black chicken from Korea make for good currency in the world of gift giving.
Just like today, people who lived in the past noticed the importance of reciprocity and place, and formulated customs to celebrate them publicly.
At ancient feasts at Stonehenge, for example, research has shown people ate pigs brought from wide reaches of Britain. Our new findings provide the first glimpse of similar behaviour in a pre-agricultural context.
How to read a tooth
Did you know that teeth grow like trees? Much like trees and their annual growth rings, teeth deposit visible layers of enamel and dentine during growth.
These growth layers track daily patterns of development and changes in the dietary intake of certain chemical elements. In our study, we sliced the teeth of wild boars from Asiab in a way that allowed us to count these daily growth layers under the microscope.
We then used this information to measure the composition of enamel secreted at approximately weekly intervals. The variability in the isotopic ratios we measured suggests at least some of the wild boars used in the feast at Asiab came from considerable distance: possibly from at least 70 km, or two or more days’ travel.
The most likely explanation is that they were hunted in farther reaches of the region and transported to the site as contributions to the feast.
Reciprocity is at the heart of social interactions. Just like a thoughtfully chosen bottle of wine does today, those boars brought from far and wide may have served to commemorate a place, an event and social bonds through gift-giving.
The work was funded by Early Career Research grants from Griffith University and the Society for Archaeological Science.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on July 11, 2025.
‘Storm clouds are gathering’: 40 years on from the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior From the prologue of the 40th anniversary edition of David Robie’s seminal book on the Rainbow Warrior’s last voyage, former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark (1999-2008) writes about what the bombing on 10 July 1985 means today. The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 1985 and the death of
Dawn service held 40 years on from Rainbow Warrior bombing TVNZ 1News The Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior has sailed into Auckland to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original Rainbow Warrior in 1985. Greenpeace’s vessel, which had been protesting nuclear testing in the Pacific, sank after French government agents planted explosives on its hull, killing Portuguese-Dutch photographer Fernando Pereira. Today, 40 years
What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Clarence, Law Lecturer, RMIT University During the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major shipping routes. Would that be possible, and what effects would it have? The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point
Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Draper, Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canterbury The widely held view among rugby players, coaches and officials is that headgear can’t prevent concussion. If so, why wear it? It’s hot, it can block vision and hearing, and it can be uncomfortable. Headgear was
Trump has flagged 200% tariffs on Australian pharmaceuticals. What do we produce here, and what’s at risk? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joe Carrello, Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne Tanya Dol/Shutterstock US President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on Australia’s pharmaceutical exports to the United States has raised alarm among industry and government leaders. There are fears that, if implemented, the tariffs could cost the Australian economy up to
‘Fashion helped the pride come out’: First Nations fashion as resistance, culture and connection Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Treena Clark, Chancellor’s Indigenous Research Fellow, Faculty of Design and Society, University of Technology Sydney Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains images of deceased people. First Nations garments have always held deep meaning. What we wear tells stories about culture, Country and
Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jon Whittle, Director, Data61, CSIRO Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock There’s been much talk recently – especially among politicians – about productivity. And for good reason: Australia’s labour productivity growth sits at a 60-year low. To address this, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a productivity round table next month.
Albanese’s China mission – managing a complex relationship in a world of shifting alliances Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Laurenceson, Director and Professor, Australia-China Relations Institute (UTS:ACRI), University of Technology Sydney Prime Minister Anthony Albanese leaves for China on Saturday, confident most Australians back the government’s handling of relations with our most important economic partner and the leading strategic power in Asia. Albanese’s domestic critics
NZ’s new AI strategy is long on ‘economic opportunity’ but short on managing ethical and social risk Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Lensen, Senior Lecturer in Artificial Intelligence, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Getty Images The government’s newly unveiled National AI Strategy is all about what its title says: “Investing with Confidence”. It tells businesses that Aotearoa New Zealand is open for AI use, and
Will my private health insurance cover my surgery? What if my claim is rejected? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yuting Zhang, Professor of Health Economics, The University of Melbourne shurkin_son/Shutterstock The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has fined Bupa A$35 million for unlawfully rejecting thousands of health insurance claims over more than five years. Between May 2018 and August 2023 Bupa incorrectly rejected claims from
Grattan on Friday: childcare is a ‘canary in mine’ warning for wider problems in policy delivery Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra It’s such a familiar pattern. When a big scandal breaks publicly, governments jump into action, ministers rush out to say they’ll “do something” instantly. But how come they hadn’t seen problems that had been in plain sight? Who can forget
The special envoy’s antisemitism plan is ambitious, but fails to reckon with the hardest questions Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matteo Vergani, Associate Professor, Deakin University On July 6, an arson attack targeted the East Melbourne Synagogue. It was the latest in a series of antisemitic incidents recorded across Australia since October 7 2023, when Hamas carried out a horrific terrorist attack, killing about 1,200 Israelis. These
Queensland’s horrific lion attack shows wild animals should not be kept for our amusement Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Georgette Leah Burns, Associate Professor, Griffith School of Environment and Science, Griffith University Luciano Gonzalez/Anadolu via Getty Images Last weekend, a woman was mauled by a lioness at Darling Downs Zoo in Queensland, and lost her arm. The zoo, which keeps nine lions, has been operating for
Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is “forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one
Does Australia really take too long to approve medicines, as the US says? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University Australia’s drug approval system is under fire, with critics in the United States claiming it is too slow to approve life-saving medicines. Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration balances speed with a rigorous assessment of safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness. So
Skorts revolutionised how women and girls play sport. But in 2025, are they regressive? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer E. Cheng, Researcher and Lecturer in Sociology, Western Sydney University If you watched any of the 2025 Wimbledon womens’ matches, you’ll have noticed many players donning a skort: a garment in which shorts are concealed under a skirt, or a front panel resembling a skirt. You
First the dire wolf, now NZ’s giant moa: why real ‘de-extinction’ is unlikely to fly Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nic Rawlence, Associate Professor in Ancient DNA, University of Otago Colossal Biosciences, CC BY-SA The announcement that New Zealand’s moa nunui (giant moa) is the next “de-extinction” target for Colossal Biosciences, in partnership with Canterbury Museum, the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre and filmmaker Peter Jackson, caused widespread
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Larissa Waters on why we deserve more than a government that just tinkers Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Greens had a poor election. They lost three of their four lower house seats including that of their leader Adam Bandt. This despite their overall vote remaining mostly steady. But they did retain all their Senate spots – though
Envoy’s plan to fight antisemitism would put universities on notice over funding Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The government’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, has recommended universities that fail to properly deal with the issue should have government funding terminated. In her Plan to Combat Antisemitism, launched Thursday, Segal says she will prepare a report
Keith Rankin Analysis – Public Debt, Japan, and Wilful Blindness Analysis by Keith Rankin. I just heard on Radio New Zealand a claim by a British commentator, Hugo Gye (Political Editor of The i Paper), that the United Kingdom (among other countries) has a major public debt crisis, and that if nothing is done about it (such as what Rachel Reeves – Chancellor of the
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Dawson, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology and National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland
Around 41% of Australians report they’ve used cannabis at some point in their life.
Research estimates that 22% of recreational cannabis consumers meet criteria for a cannabis use disorder. This condition can make it difficult to control how often or how much cannabis they use.
For medicinal cannabis, our research estimated the percentage of cannabis consumers who meet criteria for a cannabis use disorder was similar, around 25%.
These figures may come as a surprise, as the perceived risks associated with cannabis have been steadily declining in many countries.
So, how can you tell if your cannabis use is a problem?
What does cannabis use disorder look like?
A person might use cannabis to relax after a stressful day at work or to help them sleep. At first, they might do so every now and then. But over time, they might come to rely on using cannabis to stop feeling uncomfortable, stressed and sleepless.
They might begin to use cannabis daily to feel “normal”.
With regular use, the body develops tolerance to the effects of cannabis. So the person needs to use more cannabis to get the same “high”.
People who consume cannabis might use more cannabis than they intended or might have problems performing at work because they’re high at the start of the work day, or they fail to do important things such as paying bills, and buy cannabis instead.
The person might keep using cannabis despite noticing their use is causing clouded thoughts, memory issues and anxiety.
Friends and family might notice problems with their cannabis use and recommend they stop or cut back. This can be difficult for people with cannabis use disorder because they may feel anxious, irritable and have difficulty sleeping if they suddenly stop using cannabis.
These withdrawal symptoms can make it harder to quit or cut back. Withdrawal symptoms are quickly relieved by using cannabis, creating a cycle of relapse.
How is it diagnosed?
Health professionals use specific criteria to diagnose a cannabis use disorder.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a person may have a cannabis use disorder if they show at least two symptoms within one year. Symptoms can include:
using larger amounts over longer periods than intended
cravings for cannabis, where the person feels a strong urge or desire to use cannabis
trying and failing to cut back on cannabis use
continuing cannabis use despite worsening physical or psychological problems
failing to fulfil major role obligations at work, school or home
needing to use a greater amount for the same effect, known as tolerance
experiencing withdrawal symptoms such as feeling anxious, irritable or having trouble sleeping.
According to the DSM, two to three symptoms indicate a mild cannabis use disorder and few problems. A moderate disorder involves four to five symptoms, while six-plus symptoms means a severe disorder.
Who is at greatest risk?
In both recreational and medicinal consumers, the risk of cannabis use disorder is higher for people who use cannabis:
So people may increase how often they use cannabis or use more potent cannabis products in an unsuccessful attempt to control their pain.
This can lead to a cannabis use disorder, making it more difficult to manage their pain and impairing their ability to cope with the demands of everyday life.
How to reduce your risk
Legal changes in many countries, including Australia, have allowed greater access to cannabis for medical reasons. People now often use cannabis for both recreational and medical reasons (dual-use).
If you’re concerned about your cannabis use, consult your medical practitioner or contact the National Alcohol and Other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015 for confidential advice.
Wayne Hall has in the past five years been paid to advise the WHO on the adverse health effects of cannabis and to advise the Commonwealth Department of Health on the safety and effectiveness of medical uses of cannabis-based medicines.
Danielle Dawson and Valentina Lorenzetti 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.
From the prologue of the 40th anniversary edition of David Robie’s seminal book on the Rainbow Warrior’s last voyage, former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark (1999-2008) writes about what the bombing on 10 July 1985 means today.
The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 1985 and the death of a voyager on board, Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira, was both a tragic and a seminal moment in the long campaign for a nuclear-free Pacific.
It was so startling that many of us still remember where we were when the news came through. I was in Zimbabwe on my way to join the New Zealand delegation to the United Nations World Conference on Women in Nairobi. In Harare I met for the first time New Zealand Anglican priest Father Michael Lapsley who, in that same city in 1990, was severely disabled by a parcel bomb delivered by the intelligence service of the apartheid regime in South Africa. These two bombings, of the Rainbow Warrior and of Michael, have been sad reminders to me of the price so many have paid for their commitment to peace and justice.
It was also very poignant for me to meet Fernando’s daughter, Marelle, in Auckland in 2005. Her family suffered a loss which no family should have to bear. In August 1985, I was at the meeting of the Labour Party caucus when it was made known that the police had identified a woman in their custody as a French intelligence officer. Then in September, French prime minister Laurent Fabius confirmed that French secret agents had indeed sunk the Rainbow Warrior. The following year, a UN-mediated agreement saw the convicted agents leave New Zealand and a formal apology, a small amount of compensation, and undertakings on trade given by France — the latter after New Zealand perishable goods had been damaged in port in France.
Both 1985 and 1986 were momentous years for New Zealand’s assertion of its nuclear-free positioning which was seen as provocative by its nuclear-armed allies. On 4 February 1985, the United States was advised that its naval vessel, the Buchanan, could not enter a New Zealand port because it was nuclear weapons-capable and the US “neither confirm nor deny” policy meant that New Zealand could not establish whether it was nuclear weapons-armed or not.
In Manila in July 1986, a meeting between prime minister David Lange and US Secretary of State George Schultz confirmed that neither New Zealand nor the US were prepared to change their positions and that New Zealand’s engagement in ANZUS was at an end. Secretary Schultz famously said that “We part company as friends, but we part company as far as the alliance is concerned”.
Pour les 40 ans de l’attentat de la France contre le Rainbow Warrior, le journaliste néo-zélandais @DavidRobie publie une nouvelle édition de son livre sur le dernier voyage du navire de Greenpeace. Préfacée par Helen Clark, ex-PM de Nouvelle-Zélandehttps://t.co/n1v8Nduel6
New Zealand passed its Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act in 1987. Since that time, until now, the country has on a largely bipartisan basis maintained its nuclear-free policy as a fundamental tenet of its independent foreign policy. But storm clouds are gathering.
Australia’s decision to enter a nuclear submarine purchase programme with the United States is one of those. There has been much speculation about a potential Pillar Two of the AUKUS agreement which would see others in the region become partners in the development of advanced weaponry. This is occurring in the context of rising tensions between the United States and China.
Many of us share the view that New Zealand should be a voice for deescalation, not for enthusiastic expansion of nuclear submarine fleets in the Pacific and the development of more lethal weaponry.
Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior . . . publication 10 July 2025. Image: David Robie/Little Island Press
Nuclear war is an existential threat to humanity. Far from receding, the threat of use of nuclear weapons is ever present. The Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists now sits at 89 seconds to midnight. It references the Ukraine theatre where the use of nuclear weapons has been floated by Russia. The arms control architecture for Europe is unravelling, leaving the continent much less secure. India and Pakistan both have nuclear arsenals. The Middle East is a tinder box with the failure of the Iran nuclear deal and with Israel widely believed to possess nuclear weapons. North Korea continues to develop its nuclear weapons capacity. An outright military conflict between China and the United States would be one between two nuclear powers with serious ramifications for East Asia, South-East Asia, the Pacific, and far beyond.
August 2025 marks the eightieth anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A survivors’ group, Nihon Hidankyo, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year. They bear tragic witness to the horror of the use of nuclear weapons. The world must heed their voice now and at all times.
In the current global turbulence, New Zealand needs to reemphasise the principles and values which drove its nuclear-free legislation and its advocacy for a nuclear-free South Pacific and global nuclear disarmament. New Zealanders were clear — we did not want to be defended by nuclear weapons. We wanted our country to be a force for diplomacy and for dialogue, not for warmongering.
The multilateral system is now in crisis — across all its dimensions. The UN Security Council is paralysed by great power tensions. The United States is unlikely to pay its dues to the UN under the Trump presidency, and others are unlikely to fill the substantial gap which that leaves. Its humanitarian, development, health, human rights, political and peacekeeping, scientific and cultural arms all face fiscal crises.
This is the time for New Zealand to link with the many small and middle powers across regions who have a vision for a world characterised by solidarity and peace and which can rise to the occasion to combat the existential challenges it faces — including of nuclear weapons, climate change, and artificial intelligence. If our independent foreign policy is to mean anything in the mid-2020s, it must be based on concerted diplomacy for peace and sustainable development.
Movement back towards an out-of-date alliance, from which New Zealand disengaged four decades ago, and its current tentacles, offers no safe harbour — on the contrary, these destabilise the region within which we live and the wide trading relationships we have. May this new edition of David Robie’s Eyes of Fire remind us of our nuclear-free journey and its relevance as a lode star in these current challenging times.
The 40th anniversary edition of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior by David Robie ($50, Little Island Press) can be purchased from Little Island Press.
From the prologue of the 40th anniversary edition of David Robie’s seminal book on the Rainbow Warrior’s last voyage, former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark (1999-2008) writes about what the bombing on 10 July 1985 means today.
The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 1985 and the death of a voyager on board, Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira, was both a tragic and a seminal moment in the long campaign for a nuclear-free Pacific.
It was so startling that many of us still remember where we were when the news came through. I was in Zimbabwe on my way to join the New Zealand delegation to the United Nations World Conference on Women in Nairobi. In Harare I met for the first time New Zealand Anglican priest Father Michael Lapsley who, in that same city in 1990, was severely disabled by a parcel bomb delivered by the intelligence service of the apartheid regime in South Africa. These two bombings, of the Rainbow Warrior and of Michael, have been sad reminders to me of the price so many have paid for their commitment to peace and justice.
It was also very poignant for me to meet Fernando’s daughter, Marelle, in Auckland in 2005. Her family suffered a loss which no family should have to bear. In August 1985, I was at the meeting of the Labour Party caucus when it was made known that the police had identified a woman in their custody as a French intelligence officer. Then in September, French prime minister Laurent Fabius confirmed that French secret agents had indeed sunk the Rainbow Warrior. The following year, a UN-mediated agreement saw the convicted agents leave New Zealand and a formal apology, a small amount of compensation, and undertakings on trade given by France — the latter after New Zealand perishable goods had been damaged in port in France.
Both 1985 and 1986 were momentous years for New Zealand’s assertion of its nuclear-free positioning which was seen as provocative by its nuclear-armed allies. On 4 February 1985, the United States was advised that its naval vessel, the Buchanan, could not enter a New Zealand port because it was nuclear weapons-capable and the US “neither confirm nor deny” policy meant that New Zealand could not establish whether it was nuclear weapons-armed or not.
In Manila in July 1986, a meeting between prime minister David Lange and US Secretary of State George Schultz confirmed that neither New Zealand nor the US were prepared to change their positions and that New Zealand’s engagement in ANZUS was at an end. Secretary Schultz famously said that “We part company as friends, but we part company as far as the alliance is concerned”.
Pour les 40 ans de l’attentat de la France contre le Rainbow Warrior, le journaliste néo-zélandais @DavidRobie publie une nouvelle édition de son livre sur le dernier voyage du navire de Greenpeace. Préfacée par Helen Clark, ex-PM de Nouvelle-Zélandehttps://t.co/n1v8Nduel6
New Zealand passed its Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act in 1987. Since that time, until now, the country has on a largely bipartisan basis maintained its nuclear-free policy as a fundamental tenet of its independent foreign policy. But storm clouds are gathering.
Australia’s decision to enter a nuclear submarine purchase programme with the United States is one of those. There has been much speculation about a potential Pillar Two of the AUKUS agreement which would see others in the region become partners in the development of advanced weaponry. This is occurring in the context of rising tensions between the United States and China.
Many of us share the view that New Zealand should be a voice for deescalation, not for enthusiastic expansion of nuclear submarine fleets in the Pacific and the development of more lethal weaponry.
Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior . . . publication 10 July 2025. Image: David Robie/Little Island Press
Nuclear war is an existential threat to humanity. Far from receding, the threat of use of nuclear weapons is ever present. The Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists now sits at 89 seconds to midnight. It references the Ukraine theatre where the use of nuclear weapons has been floated by Russia. The arms control architecture for Europe is unravelling, leaving the continent much less secure. India and Pakistan both have nuclear arsenals. The Middle East is a tinder box with the failure of the Iran nuclear deal and with Israel widely believed to possess nuclear weapons. North Korea continues to develop its nuclear weapons capacity. An outright military conflict between China and the United States would be one between two nuclear powers with serious ramifications for East Asia, South-East Asia, the Pacific, and far beyond.
August 2025 marks the eightieth anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A survivors’ group, Nihon Hidankyo, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year. They bear tragic witness to the horror of the use of nuclear weapons. The world must heed their voice now and at all times.
In the current global turbulence, New Zealand needs to reemphasise the principles and values which drove its nuclear-free legislation and its advocacy for a nuclear-free South Pacific and global nuclear disarmament. New Zealanders were clear — we did not want to be defended by nuclear weapons. We wanted our country to be a force for diplomacy and for dialogue, not for warmongering.
The multilateral system is now in crisis — across all its dimensions. The UN Security Council is paralysed by great power tensions. The United States is unlikely to pay its dues to the UN under the Trump presidency, and others are unlikely to fill the substantial gap which that leaves. Its humanitarian, development, health, human rights, political and peacekeeping, scientific and cultural arms all face fiscal crises.
This is the time for New Zealand to link with the many small and middle powers across regions who have a vision for a world characterised by solidarity and peace and which can rise to the occasion to combat the existential challenges it faces — including of nuclear weapons, climate change, and artificial intelligence. If our independent foreign policy is to mean anything in the mid-2020s, it must be based on concerted diplomacy for peace and sustainable development.
Movement back towards an out-of-date alliance, from which New Zealand disengaged four decades ago, and its current tentacles, offers no safe harbour — on the contrary, these destabilise the region within which we live and the wide trading relationships we have. May this new edition of David Robie’s Eyes of Fire remind us of our nuclear-free journey and its relevance as a lode star in these current challenging times.
The 40th anniversary edition of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior by David Robie ($50, Little Island Press) can be purchased from Little Island Press.
The Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior has sailed into Auckland to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original Rainbow Warrior in 1985.
Greenpeace’s vessel, which had been protesting nuclear testing in the Pacific, sank after French government agents planted explosives on its hull, killing Portuguese-Dutch photographer Fernando Pereira.
Today, 40 years on from the events on July 10 1985, a dawn ceremony was held in Auckland.
Author Margaret Mills was a cook on board the ship at the time, and has written about her experience in a book entitled Anecdotage.
Author Margaret Mills tells TVNZ Breakfast about the night of the Rainbow Warrior bombing 40 years ago. Image: TVNZ
The 95-year-old told TVNZ Breakfast the experience on board “changed her life”.
“I was sound asleep, and I heard this sort of bang and turned the light on, but it wouldn’t go on.
She said when she left her cabin, a crew member told her “we’ve been bombed”.
‘I laughed at him’ “I laughed at him, I said ‘we don’t get bombs in New Zealand, that’s ridiculous’.”
She said they were taken to the police station after a “big boom when the second bomb came through”.
“I realised immediately, I was part of a historical event,” she said.
TVNZ reporter Corazon Miller talks to Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman (centre) and journalist David Robie after the Rainbow Warrior memorial dawn service today. Image: TVNZ
Journalist David Robie. who travelled on the Rainbow Warrior and wrote the book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior published today, told Breakfast it was a “really shocking, shocking night”.
“We were so overwhelmed by the grief and absolute shock of what had happened. But for me, there was no doubt it was France behind this.”
“But we were absolutely flabbergasted that a country could do this.”
He said it was a “very emotional moment” and was hard to believe it had been 40 years since that time.
‘Momentous occasion’ “It stands out in my life as being the most momentous occasion as a journalist covering that whole event.”
Executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa Russel Norman said the legacy of the ship was about “people who really stood up for something important”.
“I mean, ending nuclear testing in the Pacific, imagine if they were still exploding bombs in the Pacific. We would have to live with that.
“And those people back then they stood up and beat the French government to end nuclear testing.
“It’s pretty inspirational.”
He said the group were still campaigning on some key environmental issues today.
During the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major shipping routes.
Would that be possible, and what effects would it have?
The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is used to transport about 20% of global daily oil consumption.
Iran effectively controls this crucial shipping route because it is a coastal state bordering this narrow stretch of water. The strait is too narrow to avoid navigating waters claimed by Iran. This raises thorny legal questions about whether it is really possible for Iran to block the strait, and what recourse other states have if it does.
This geographical reality is far from new, and the legal frameworks governing international maritime activity have developed over centuries. At its heart is the lex mercatoria — the “law of merchants” — a body of transnational commercial law that emerged organically from the practices of traders operating across borders.
Within this broader framework sits the lex maritima, or customary maritime law, which has long adapted to the hazards of shipping across vast oceans.
The lex maritima originated from the shared practices of seafarers and merchants. Its purpose? To manage the unpredictable nature of maritime trade that demands coherent and stable rules.
One of the most enduring principles of this legal tradition is the idea of mare liberum, or “the free sea”, set out by Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1609. He argued the high seas should remain open to all for peaceful navigation and trade. This conveniently legitimised the ambitions of European colonial powers, granting them unfettered access to global maritime routes at a time when control over sea-based trade promised immense economic and strategic advantage.
The shifting boundaries of maritime law
One of the most fundamental questions in maritime law is: where do a nation’s territorial waters end, and the high seas begin?
After the second world war, a series of conferences culminated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the customary 3 nautical miles (5.56km) of territorial waters states could claim as their own was extended. This narrow limit was rooted more in historical naval range – the so-called “cannon shot rule” – than in modern geopolitical or environmental realities.
In 1959, Iran took the unusual step of unilaterally extending its territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, despite not being a party to UNCLOS. Two decades later, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis, Washington grew increasingly anxious about the security of oil flows from the Persian Gulf. These concerns intensified during the Iran-Iraq War, especially as Iran began using small islands in the Strait of Hormuz to deploy military forces and threaten commercial shipping.
UNCLOS and the new rules of the sea
One of the key compromises of UNCLOS was an extension of territorial waters for states that ratified the treaty. In exchange, UNCLOS replaced the older concept of “innocent passage” – which allowed only surface navigation through territorial seas – with the broader notion of “transit passage”. Under this regime, vessels and aircraft from other states are granted the right to travel not only on the surface, but also under the sea and through the air above straits used for international navigation.
While 169 states have ratified UNCLOS, both Iran and the United States remain notable holdouts. This means Iran does not enjoy the broader 12-nautical-mile limit recognised under UNCLOS, and the US cannot claim the agreement’s protections for transit passage through strategic choke points.
While the geopolitical and legal tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz may seem far removed from the world of private commerce, the global economy continues to function thanks to a powerful legal tool: the contract. Contracts offer a predictable framework that allows trade across borders without parties needing to trust one another personally.
The Strait of Hormuz is bordered by active, assertive states such as Iran, which means the potential for interstate conflict is relatively high. This doesn’t mean commercial contracts are irrelevant to the recent dispute in the Strait of Hormuz — far from it. But their influence is more indirect.
What can be learned?
Without significant political change in Tehran, it’s unlikely either Iran or the US will shift its position on adopting UNCLOS. Yet despite Iran’s repeated threats to close the strait, it has never followed through — and the US Navy continues to maintain a steady presence in the region. For now, a fragile but persistent equilibrium holds.
Belinda Clarence 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.
The widely held view among rugby players, coaches and officials is that headgear can’t prevent concussion. If so, why wear it? It’s hot, it can block vision and hearing, and it can be uncomfortable.
Headgear was originally designed to protect players from cuts and abrasions. But players still hope it will offer them a degree of protection against the collisions they experience in the game. Some players adopt it after previous concussions.
We’re now seeing increasing numbers of professional players opting in. The Irish men’s team, for example, field up to five players each match sporting headgear. In Japan, it’s mandatory for juniors. And more parents in New Zealand are making their children wear it, too.
The exact specifications for rugby match kit – boots, shorts, shoulder pads and
headgear – are regulated through World Rugby’s Law 4 and Regulation 12. In 2019, the governing body launched a trial enabling players to wear headgear with new technical specifications in training and matches.
The specifications have meant manufacturers can take advantage of novel “isotropic” materials that can potentially reduce the impact forces experienced by players.
Conventional headgear is composed of soft foams that flatten when a player’s head collides with the ground or another player. As such, they can only minimally absorb those collision forces.
Isotropic materials behave differently. They can absorb impacts from multiple directions and may offer a level of protection against the effects on a player’s head of a tackle or other collision event.
Given these changes, and in light of recent research, we may need to change the narrative around rugby headgear: while it may not prevent concussion, it might reduce the total contact “burden” experienced by players in a game and over a whole season. And this could have benefits for long-term brain health.
Impacts across seasons and careers
Contact in rugby – through tackles, at the breakdown, and in scrums and lineouts – leads to players experiencing a number of collisions or “head acceleration events”. This contact is most commonly head to ground, head to body or head to head.
By having players use “smart” mouthguards with embedded micro-accelerometers and gyroscopes to capture head movements, researchers can now measure each collision and each player’s contact load in a game – and potentially over a career.
A player’s total contact load is found by adding together the magnitude of the impacts they experience in a game. These are measured as “peak linear accelerations” or “peak rotational accelerations”.
While past research and media attention has focused on concussion, it has become clear the total contact burden in training and matches – the total “sub-concussive knocks” through head acceleration events – may be as important, if not more so.
One of our own research projects involved following 40 under-16 players wearing smart mouthguards for all training and matches across one season. Peak Linear accelerations are measured as a g-force (g). Activities such as such as running, jumping and shaking the head would measure under 8g, for example, whereas heading a soccer ball might measure 31g.
The results of our study showed the players differed greatly in their cumulative exposure over a whole season, from 300g to nearly 14,000g. These differences would be amplified further over an entire rugby career.
Some of the variation is likely due to a player’s team position, with loose forwards having a greater burden than others. But it also seems some players just enjoy the contact aspects of the game more than others.
Rugby is an impact sport: the Ireland and England women’s teams clash in 2025. Getty Images
Potential benefits of new headgear materials
Researcher Helen Murray at the University of Auckland has highlighted the need for more research into the burden of collisions, rather than just concussions, over a rugby career. In particular, we need to know more about its effect on future brain health.
We hope to contribute to this by following our existing cohort of players through their careers. In the meantime, our research has examined the potential of existing rugby headgear and new isotropic materials to mitigate peak accelerations in rugby collisions.
Using the field data collected from male and female players over the past four seasons, we have designed laboratory testing protocols to compare the conventional and newer materials.
The results suggest the new forms of headgear do have the potential to reduce the impact burden for players.
We found 55–90% of head acceleration events do involve direct contact with the head. As such, collision-mitigation headgear could be beneficial. And our laboratory testing produced an estimated 30% reduction in peak linear accelerations with the headgear compared to without.
The nature of concussion is complex and related to the size of an impact as well as its direction and angle. For instance, we observed the concussions experienced by the junior players occurred between 12g and 62g – well below the male threshold of 70g requiring professional players to be removed from the field for a head injury assessment.
Currently, it seems unlikely headgear can prevent concussion. But it does appear new headgear materials could significantly reduce the total impact burden for players during their careers. And this may help safeguard their future brain health.
Nick Draper receives funding from the Health Research Council, Cure Kids, the Neurological Foundation, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, Pacific Radiology Group, the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, and the UC Foundation.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Treena Clark, Chancellor’s Indigenous Research Fellow, Faculty of Design and Society, University of Technology Sydney
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains images of deceased people.
First Nations garments have always held deep meaning. What we wear tells stories about culture, Country and community.
From the moment of invasion, clothing and adornment were removed and used to erase our cultural presence. But resistance never stopped.
Today, First Nations designers, artists and community members continue to reclaim garments as acts of survival, empowerment and self-determination.
Cultural practices like cloak-making and adornment are linked to wellbeing. They restore pride, connect to ancestors and Country, and build community.
First Nations fashion designers and artists create exquisite items that represent culture, speak back to colonisation, and contribute to healing.
A shared experience
Like so many others, what I wear is deeply personal. I have my dad’s old Aboriginal rugby guernsey. He wore it for years. Now I wear it. It’s a piece of him I get to carry.
It’s a part of what links me to my research in understanding First Nations fashion and style as living expressions of who we are.
I had the chance to yarn with 20 Aboriginal Knowledge Holders from Tarntanya (Adelaide), Naarm (Melbourne) and Warrane (Sydney) about their fashion and style choices.
Like many of the people I spoke to in this study, we use First Nations fashion and style as a way to stay connected to culture and community and express identity and resistance.
Fashion as connection and solidarity
For many of the Knowledge Holders I spoke with, wearing First Nations clothing and adornment connects them to culture and community.
It becomes a way to share who they are and stand together in a world that has tried to silence and erase them.
The Knowledge Holders wear everything from subtle pins and badges to bold hoodies, t-shirts and merch with Aboriginal flag motifs and slogans. Some choose delicate shawls or clothing with cultural artworks.
As one Knowledge Holder put it, it’s “a contribution, a brick in the wall” that helps the building of identity and belonging.
For mob living off-Country in cities or overseas, wearing culture becomes an important way to stay connected.
This sense of connection can also show up in the most ordinary places.
Several Knowledge Holders shared how wearing an Aboriginal shirt in places like the supermarket often sparks a moment of connection. Sometimes they approach others, sometimes they’re the ones approached.
Fashion as pride and cultural practice
For most of the Knowledge Holders, wearing First Nations clothing affirms their Aboriginality and gives them a sense of pride.
For some, it’s about proudly showing who they are, especially in a society where racism still exists. That pride runs through generations.
Some talked about how they weren’t always allowed to show their First Nations identity openly, but now they can wear cultural clothing freely, all of the time.
The Knowledge Holders wear First Nations fashions at work, in shops, when travelling overseas, at graduations and especially at cultural events or protests.
Another Knowledge Holder shared how fashion filled a gap, giving First Nations people the words and symbols to express their culture and identity.
This Knowledge Holder declared, “fashion helped the pride come out”.
Others shared that even though wearing these clothes can mean dealing with racism or ignorance, they still choose to show that pride.
Fashion as identity and protest
For many of the Knowledge Holders, First Nations fashion and style is a way to strengthen their identity, share culture and protest.
They talked about wearing protest clothing as a clear political statement, especially at marches, NAIDOC events or on Invasion Day.
For many, clothing is how they show who they are, both to themselves and to others.
One Knowledge Holder said
if I don’t wear something Indigenous, they wouldn’t know that I was.
Some pointed out that First Nations fashion and style can be an important sign for them, especially if they feel they “pass” as non-Indigenous or look ethnically ambiguous.
But not all Knowledge Holders use fashion to show their identity. One told me they only wear First Nations clothing in solidarity with others, not as personal expression.
There’s more to learn and do
First Nations fashion and style is so much more than just clothing. It’s memory, resistance and a story we carry on our bodies.
As one of the Knowledge Holders put it:
we wasn’t allowed to be proud of it. Now we can wear [an Aboriginal] t-shirt whenever, all day every day.
That says it all. But there’s still work to do. We need to keep learning and understanding about all the different layers and identities that shape these experiences.
There is more research to be done to include more voices, like those of diverse genders and sexualities, Torres Strait Islanders and regional fashion scenes.
And it’s not just about research. We need more policies, more exhibitions, more programs and more platforms that celebrate First Nations fashion and style.
Treena Clark has received funding through the University of Technology Sydney Chancellor’s Indigenous Research Fellowship scheme.
US President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on Australia’s pharmaceutical exports to the United States has raised alarm among industry and government leaders.
There are fears that, if implemented, the tariffs could cost the Australian economy up to A$2.8 billion. That’s both in direct exports and as inputs to third countries that produce drugs also hit by tariffs.
The proposed tariffs come amid growing pressure from pharmaceutical lobby groups in the US for Trump to use trade negotiations as a tool to make changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and raise Australian drug prices.
In response, Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated the government would not compromise the integrity of the PBS to do a deal with the Trump administration. Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie also confirmed bipartisan support for the PBS.
Our largest export market for pharmaceuticals
The US is Australia’s biggest pharmaceutical export market, accounting for 38% of total Australian pharmaceutical exports and valued at $2.2 billion last year.
About 87% of exports to the US consist of blood plasma products, mainly from manufacturing giant CSL. These are used for transfusions in a range of medical and surgical situations.
In a submission to the US Commerce Department, which is reviewing the sector, CSL called for tariffs to be phased in over five years, and for an exemption for certain biotech equipment.
Trump floated proposed tariffs potentially as high as 200%. But he also said these would not be imposed for “about a year, a year and a half” to allow negotiations to take place.
It helps reduce the cost of essential medications, ensuring access to treatments for a wide range of medical conditions. Medicines included on the PBS are subsidised by the government, with the patient making a capped co-payment. More than 900 medicines were listed on the scheme in 2023–24, costing the government $17.7 billion.
Decisions to list medications on the PBS are made by the health minister based on recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The committee evaluates the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness (“value for money”) and estimated financial impact of new medications.
If approved, the PBS uses this information to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, helping to keep prices affordable.
How does the US system compare?
This contrasts with the US system, which operates more under free-market principles. In the US, pharmaceuticals are subsidised through private health insurance or government programs such as Medicaid. Neither directly negotiates with pharmaceutical companies.
The fragmented nature of the US system enables pharmaceutical companies to maintain higher prices, as there is no central authority to enforce cost controls. Studies have shown that prices for pharmaceuticals in the US are, on average, 2.78 times those in 33 other countries.
In addition, in the US pharmaceutical companies are granted extensive patent protections. These provide exclusive rights to sell their drugs for a certain period.
This exclusivity often leads to monopolistic pricing practices, as generic competitors are barred from entering the market until the patent expires.
In Australia, patents also exist. But the PBS mitigates their impact by negotiating prices and promoting the use of cost-effective alternatives, such as generics, once they become available.
Industry lobbying
US pharmaceutical industry bodies have long criticised the PBS. They claim the scheme “undervalues new innovative medicines by setting prices based on older inferior medicines and generics, and through use of low and outdated monetary thresholds per year of life gained from clinically proven treatments”.
The slow process to list drugs on the PBS has also attracted criticism. The advisory committee meets only three times a year, with resources currently being stretched beyond capacity.
In response to these criticisms, the Australian government commissioned a review, which was completed in 2024. It provided 50 recommendations to ensure Australians can continue to access effective, safe and affordable medicines in an equitable and timely way.
The government has established an advisory group to work on implementing these recommendations. However, it is unclear whether proposed changes will appease the powerful US pharmaceutical industry.
I am responsible for evaluating new health technologies for consideration of government subsidy through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS)
US President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on Australia’s pharmaceutical exports to the United States has raised alarm among industry and government leaders.
There are fears that, if implemented, the tariffs could cost the Australian economy up to A$2.8 billion. That’s both in direct exports and as inputs to third countries that produce drugs also hit by tariffs.
The proposed tariffs come amid growing pressure from pharmaceutical lobby groups in the US for Trump to use trade negotiations as a tool to make changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and raise Australian drug prices.
In response, Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated the government would not compromise the integrity of the PBS to do a deal with the Trump administration. Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie also confirmed bipartisan support for the PBS.
Our largest export market for pharmaceuticals
The US is Australia’s biggest pharmaceutical export market, accounting for 38% of total Australian pharmaceutical exports and valued at $2.2 billion last year.
About 87% of exports to the US consist of blood plasma products, mainly from manufacturing giant CSL. These are used for transfusions in a range of medical and surgical situations.
In a submission to the US Commerce Department, which is reviewing the sector, CSL called for tariffs to be phased in over five years, and for an exemption for certain biotech equipment.
Trump floated proposed tariffs potentially as high as 200%. But he also said these would not be imposed for “about a year, a year and a half” to allow negotiations to take place.
It helps reduce the cost of essential medications, ensuring access to treatments for a wide range of medical conditions. Medicines included on the PBS are subsidised by the government, with the patient making a capped co-payment. More than 900 medicines were listed on the scheme in 2023–24, costing the government $17.7 billion.
Decisions to list medications on the PBS are made by the health minister based on recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The committee evaluates the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness (“value for money”) and estimated financial impact of new medications.
If approved, the PBS uses this information to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, helping to keep prices affordable.
How does the US system compare?
This contrasts with the US system, which operates more under free-market principles. In the US, pharmaceuticals are subsidised through private health insurance or government programs such as Medicaid. Neither directly negotiates with pharmaceutical companies.
The fragmented nature of the US system enables pharmaceutical companies to maintain higher prices, as there is no central authority to enforce cost controls. Studies have shown that prices for pharmaceuticals in the US are, on average, 2.78 times those in 33 other countries.
In addition, in the US pharmaceutical companies are granted extensive patent protections. These provide exclusive rights to sell their drugs for a certain period.
This exclusivity often leads to monopolistic pricing practices, as generic competitors are barred from entering the market until the patent expires.
In Australia, patents also exist. But the PBS mitigates their impact by negotiating prices and promoting the use of cost-effective alternatives, such as generics, once they become available.
Industry lobbying
US pharmaceutical industry bodies have long criticised the PBS. They claim the scheme “undervalues new innovative medicines by setting prices based on older inferior medicines and generics, and through use of low and outdated monetary thresholds per year of life gained from clinically proven treatments”.
The slow process to list drugs on the PBS has also attracted criticism. The advisory committee meets only three times a year, with resources currently being stretched beyond capacity.
In response to these criticisms, the Australian government commissioned a review, which was completed in 2024. It provided 50 recommendations to ensure Australians can continue to access effective, safe and affordable medicines in an equitable and timely way.
The government has established an advisory group to work on implementing these recommendations. However, it is unclear whether proposed changes will appease the powerful US pharmaceutical industry.
I am responsible for evaluating new health technologies for consideration of government subsidy through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS)
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Laurenceson, Director and Professor, Australia-China Relations Institute (UTS:ACRI), University of Technology Sydney
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese leaves for China on Saturday, confident most Australians back the government’s handling of relations with our most important economic partner and the leading strategic power in Asia.
Albanese’s domestic critics have lambasted him for meeting Chinese leader Xi Jinping before United States President Donald Trump. They are also aggrieved at his refusal to label China a security threat.
But neither criticism really stacks up.
An Albanese-Trump meeting would have happened last month on the sidelines of a G7 gathering in Canada. It was Trump who left early, standing up more leaders than just Albanese.
Nor is Albanese the first Australian prime minister to meet a Chinese president before an American one. His predecessor Tony Abbott caught up with Xi a few weeks after coming to office in 2013, before he had a chance to meet President Barack Obama.
‘Friends, not foes’
Meanwhile, polling indicates just one in five Australians see the relationship with China first and foremost as “a threat to be confronted”. Rather, a clear two-thirds majority see it as “a complex relationship to be managed”.
Albanese is also regarded as more competent than his opposition counterpart in handling Australia’s foreign policy generally – and better at managing the China relationship specifically.
The prime minister’s Chinese hosts also have an incentive to ensure his visit is a successful one.
In the past fortnight, China’s ambassador in Canberra, Xiao Qian, has penned opinion pieces in two of Australia’s biggest media outlets, insisting Australia and China are “friends, not foes” and touting the “comprehensive turnaround” in bilateral ties since Labor won government in May 2022.
Beijing and Washington view each other as their geopolitical priority. Beijing can make it harder for Washington to enlist security allies such as Canberra in this rivalry by maintaining its own strong and constructive bilateral ties with Australia.
And quite apart from the competition with the US, China relied on Australia last year as its fifth largest import source.
Plenty of complaints
None of this is to say Albanese’s visit will be easy, because Australia-China relations are rarely smooth.
Canberra continues to have many complaints about China’s international behaviour.
For example, Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently signed a joint statement with her counterparts in Washington, Tokyo and New Delhi expressing “serious concerns regarding dangerous and provocative actions” by China in the East and South China Seas, and the “abrupt constriction […] of key supply chains”.
Wong has also said the government remains “appalled” by the treatment of Australians imprisoned in China, including Dr Yang Jun, who is facing espionage charges he strongly denies.
Defence Minister Richard Marles has voiced Canberra’s alarm at Beijing’s “no limits agreement” with Moscow, and claimed China has
engaged in the biggest conventional military build-up since the end of the second world war.
However, this assessment is contested by independent Australian analysts.
Beijing also has plenty of complaints. They include Canberra’s ongoing pursuit of closer military cooperation with the US and UK through the AUKUS pact.
There is also the commitment to forcing the sale of the lease to operate the Port of Darwin that is currently held by a Chinese company.
Reliable trading partner
Albanese has already made clear his visit to China will have a strong economic focus.
While grappling with security challenges, any Australian government, Labor or Coalition, must face the reality that last year, local companies sold more to China – worth A$196 billion – than our next four largest markets combined.
China is also, by far, Australia’s biggest supplier, putting downward pressure on the cost of living.
Research produced by Curtin University, commissioned by the Australia-China Business Council, finds trade with China increases disposable income of the average Australian household by $2,600, or 4.6% per person.
In an ideal world, Australia would have a more diversified trading mix.
But again, any Australian government or business must grapple with the reality that obvious major alternative markets, like the US, are not only less interested in local goods and services, but are walking away from their past trade commitments.
This also explains Alabese’s response when he was asked in April if he would support Trump’s trade war against China:
It would be extraordinary if the Australian response was “thank you” and we will help to further hurt our economy
Likewise, Trade Minister Don Farrell is adamant Australia’s interests will determine the Albanese government’s choices, not “what the Americans may or may not want”.
We don’t want to do less business with China, we want to do more business with China.
Deeper trade ties with Asia, including China, are not just about making a buck. Wong has stressed the national security implications of a strong economic relationship:
[It is] an investment in our security. Stability and prosperity are mutually reinforcing.
All of this means Albanese’s six-day visit to China is shaping up to be time well spent.
James Laurenceson 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.
There’s been much talk recently – especially among politicians – about productivity. And for good reason: Australia’s labour productivity growth sits at a 60-year low.
To address this, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a productivity round table next month. This will coincide with the release of an interim report from the Productivity Commission, which is looking at five pillars of reform. One of these is the role of data and digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI).
But what do we really know about how AI impacts productivity?
What is productivity?
Put simply, productivity is how much output (goods and services) we can produce from a given amount of inputs (such as labour and raw materials). It matters because higher productivity typically translates to a higher standard of living. Productivity growth has accounted for 80% of Australia’s income growth over the past three decades.
Productivity can be thought of as individual, organisational or national.
Your individual productivity is how efficiently you manage your time and resources to complete tasks. How many emails can you respond to in an hour? How many products can you check for defects in a day?
Organisational productivity is how well an organisation achieves its goals. For example, in a research organisation, how many top-quality research papers are produced?
National productivity is the economic efficiency of a nation, often measured as gross domestic product per hour worked. It is effectively an aggregate of the other forms. But it’s notoriously difficult to track how changes in individual or organisational productivity translate into national GDP per hour worked.
AI and individual productivity
The nascent research examining the relationship between AI and individual productivity shows mixed results.
A 2025 real-world study of AI and productivity involved 776 experienced product professionals at US multinational company Procter & Gamble. The study showed that individuals randomly assigned to use AI performed as well as a team of two without. A similar study in 2023 with 750 consultants from Boston Consulting Group found tasks were 18% faster with generative AI.
A 2023 paper reported on an early generative AI system in a Fortune 500 software company used by 5,200 customer support agents. The system showed a 14% increase in the number of issues resolved per hour. For less experienced agents, productivity increased by 35%.
But AI doesn’t always increase individual productivity.
A survey of 2,500 professionals found generative AI actually increased workload for 77% of workers. Some 47% said they didn’t know how to unlock productivity benefits. The study points to barriers such as the need to verify and/or correct AI outputs, the need for AI upskilling, and unreasonable expectations about what AI can do.
A recent CSIRO study examined the daily use of Microsoft 365 Copilot by 300 employees of a government organisation. While the majority self-reported productivity benefits, a sizeable minority (30%) did not. Even those workers who reported productivity improvements expected greater productivity benefits than were delivered.
AI and organisational productivity
It’s difficult, if not impossible, to attribute changes in an organisation’s productivity to the introduction of AI. Businesses are sensitive to many social and organisational factors, any one of which could be the reason for a change in productivity.
Nevertheless, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated the productivity benefits of traditional AI – that is, machine learning applied for an industry-specific task – to be zero to 11% at the organisational level.
A 2024 summary paper cites independent studies showing increases in organisational productivity from AI in Germany, Italy and Taiwan.
In contrast, a 2022 analysis of 300,000 US firms didn’t find a significant correlation between AI adoption and productivity, but did for other technologies such as robotics and cloud computing. Likely explanations are that AI hasn’t yet had an effect on many firms, or simply that it’s too hard to disentangle the impact of AI given it’s never applied in isolation.
AI productivity increases can also sometimes be masked by additional human labour needed to train or operate AI systems. Take Amazon’s Just Walk Out technology for shops.
More generally, think about the unknown number (but likely millions) of people paid to label data for AI models.
AI and national productivity
The picture at a national level is even murkier.
Clearly, AI hasn’t yet impacted national productivity. It can be argued that technology developments take time to affect national productivity, as companies need to figure out how to use the technology and put the necessary infrastructure and skills in place.
The common narrative around AI and productivity is that AI automates mundane tasks, making us faster at doing things and giving us more time for creative pursuits. This, however, is a naive view of how work happens.
Just because you can deal with your inbox more quickly doesn’t mean you’ll spend your afternoon on the beach. The more emails you fire off, the more you’ll receive back, and the never-ending cycle continues.
Imagine a world in which AI isn’t simply about speeding up tasks but proactively slows us down, to give us space to be more innovative, and more productive. That’s the real untapped opportunity with AI.
Jon Whittle works at CSIRO which receives R&D funding from a wide range of government and industry clients.
The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has fined Bupa A$35 million for unlawfully rejecting thousands of health insurance claims over more than five years.
Between May 2018 and August 2023 Bupa incorrectly rejected claims from patients who had multiple medical procedures, with at least one of those procedures covered under their health insurance policy.
Instead of paying the portion of the treatment that was covered, Bupa’s automated systems wrongly rejected the entire claim.
Each tier has a minimum set of “clinical categories”. These are groups of hospital treatments that must be covered.
For example, basic hospital cover only has three mandatory inclusions: rehabilitation, hospital psychiatric services and palliative care. But this is “restricted” cover, meaning patients will often still have to pay substantial out-of-pocket costs for these services.
Basic cover is entry-level cover, mainly for people who want to avoid the Lifetime Health Cover loading and the Medicare Levy Surcharge. These are both ways of encouraging people to take up private health insurance while young and keeping it, especially people on higher incomes.
At the other end of the scale is gold cover, which includes unrestricted cover for all defined clinical categories, including pregnancy and birth.
You can generally change your level of cover at any time. When you upgrade to include new services or increase benefits for existing services, you will need to serve new waiting periods for those new or increased benefits.
A common waiting period is 12 months for pre-existing conditions (any ailment, illness or condition that you had signs or symptoms of during the six months before upgrading, even if undiagnosed), and for pregnancy and birth-related services. But there is generally only a two-month waiting period for psychiatric care, rehabilitation or palliative care, even if it’s for a pre-existing condition.
It’s a good idea to review your policy every two years because your health needs and financial circumstances can change.
How much do companies pay out?
The proportion of premiums that are paid out to cover medical claims is known as the “average payout ratio”. And this has been about 84–86% over most of the past 20 years.
This does not mean your health insurer will pay out 84–86% of your individual claim. This national average accounts for the percentage of all premiums in any one year, across all insurers, that’s paid out in claims.
That’s because for-profit health insurers have pressure to deliver profits to shareholders and have incentives to minimise payouts and control costs.
If not properly managed, these incentives may result in higher out-of-pocket expenses and denied claims.
Why has my claim been rejected?
Common reasons for claims to be rejected include:
the policy excluded or restricted the clinical category
the waiting period was not served
incorrect information (for example, a doctor billed an incorrect item number)
what’s known as “mixed coverage” (as in the Bupa scandal), where not everything in a claim is covered, but the entire claim is declined.
What if I think there’s an error?
If your health insurance company refuses your claim, you can request a detailed explanation in writing.
If you believe your claim has been incorrectly denied, you can make a formal complaint directly with the insurer. For this you need to check your policy documents, and gather supporting evidence. This may include detailed invoices, medical reports, referral letters and correct item numbers.
If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the health fund’s internal review, or the fund doesn’t respond with the specific time-frame (for instance, 30–45 days), you can escalate your complaint.
You can get in touch with the Commonwealth Ombudsman (phone: 1300 362 072). This provides a free, independent complaint handling service for a range of consumer issues, including health insurance.
The Bupa scandal, along with ongoing concerns about transparency and rising out-of-pocket costs, highlights the need for policy reforms to better protect consumers.
The government should require health insurers and health-care providers to give clear estimates of all potential out-of-pocket costs for a procedure before it happens. This would avoid unexpected bills and help consumers make informed decisions about their health care.
Yuting Zhang has received funding from the Australian Research Council (future fellowship project ID FT200100630), Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Victorian Department of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council and Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network. In the past, Professor Zhang has received funding from several US institutes including the US National Institutes of Health, Commonwealth fund, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She has not received funding from for-profit industry including the private health insurance industry.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Lensen, Senior Lecturer in Artificial Intelligence, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
The government’s newly unveiled National AI Strategy is all about what its title says: “Investing with Confidence”. It tells businesses that Aotearoa New Zealand is open for AI use, and that our “light touch” approach won’t get in their way.
The question now is whether the claims made for AI by Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology Shane Reti – that it will help boost productivity and enable the economy to grow by billions of dollars – can be justified.
Generative AI – the kind powering ChatGPT, CoPilot and Google’s video generator Veo 3 – is certainly earning money. In its latest funding round in April, OpenAI was valued at US$300 billion.
Nvidia, which makes the hardware that powers AI technology, just became the first publicly traded company to surpass a $4 trillion market valuation. It’d be great if New Zealand could get a slice of that pie.
New Zealand doesn’t have the capacity to build new generative AI systems, however. That takes tens of thousands of NVIDIA’s chips, costing many millions of dollars that only big tech companies or large nation states can afford.
What New Zealand can do is build new systems and services around these models, either by fine-tuning them, or using them as part of a bigger software system or service.
The government isn’t offering any new money to help companies do this. Its AI strategy is about reducing barriers, providing regulatory guidance, building capacity and ensuring adaption happens responsibly.
But there aren’t many barriers to begin with. The regulatory guidance contained in the strategy essentially says “we won’t regulate”. Existing laws are said to be “technology-neutral” and therefore sufficient.
As for building capacity, the country’s tertiary sector is more under-funded than ever, with universities cutting courses and staff. Humanities research into AI ethics is also ineligible for government funding as it doesn’t contribute to economic growth.
A relaxed regulatory regime
The issue of responsible adoption is perhaps of most concern. The 42-page “Responsible AI Guidance for Businesses” document, released alongside the strategy, contains useful material on issues such as detecting bias, measuring model accuracy, and human oversight. But it is just that – guidance – and entirely voluntary.
This puts New Zealand among the most relaxed nations when it comes to AI regulation, along with Japan and Singapore. At the other end is the European Union, which enacted its comprehensive AI Act in 2024, and has stood fast against lobbying to delay legislative rollout.
The relaxed approach is interesting in light of New Zealand being ranked third-to-last out of 47 countries in a recent survey of trust in AI. In another survey from last year, 66% of New Zealanders reported being nervous about the impacts of AI.
Some of the nervousness can be explained by AI being a new technology with well documented examples of inappropriate use, intentional or not. Deepfakes as a form of cyber bulling have become a major concern. Even the ACT Party, not generally in favour of more regulation, wants to criminalise the creation and sharing of non-consensual, sexually explicit deepfakes.
Generative image, video and music creation is reducing the demand for creative workers – even though it is their very work that was used to train the AI models.
But there are other, more subtle issues, too. AI systems learn from data. If that data is biased, then those systems will learn to be biased, too.
New Zealanders are right to be anxious about the prospect of private sector companies denying them jobs, entry to supermarkets or a bank loan because of something in their pasts. Because modern deep learning models are so complex and impenetrable, it can be impossible to determine how an AI system made a decision.
And what of the potential for AI to be used online to mislead voters and discredit the democratic process, as the New York Times has reported may have occurred already in at least 50 cases?
Managing risk the European way
The strategy is essentially silent on all of these issues. It also doesn’t mention Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. Even Google’s AI summary tells me this is the nation’s founding document, laying the groundwork for Māori and the Crown to coexist.
Allowing these systems to be imported and deployed in Aotearoa New Zealand in sensitive applications – healthcare or justice, for example – without any regulation or oversight risks worsening inequalities even further.
“Unacceptable risk” – the likes of social scoring (where individuals’ daily activities are monitored and scored for their societal benefit) and AI hacking – is outright banned.
High-risk systems, such as uses for employment or transportation infrastructure, require strict obligations, including risk assessments and human oversight.
Limited and minimal risk applications – the biggest category by far – imposes very little red tape on companies.
This feels like a mature approach New Zealand might emulate. It wouldn’t stymie productivity much – unless companies were doing something risky. In which case, the 66% of New Zealanders who are nervous about AI might well agree it’s worth slowing down and getting it right.
Andrew Lensen receives government funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment through contestable academic research funds. He is the co-director of LensenMcGavin AI, a consultancy specialising in the responsible uptake of AI in Aotearoa.
It’s such a familiar pattern. When a big scandal breaks publicly, governments jump into action, ministers rush out to say they’ll “do something” instantly.
But how come they hadn’t seen problems that had been in plain sight?
Who can forget then-workplace relations minister Tony Burke insisting he’d been unaware, before media revelations, that organised crime was in the CFMEU? After a Nine media expose, a large portion of the notorious union soon ended up in administration.
When a childcare worker was charged with some 70 offences last week, Education Minister Jason Clare immediately declared he’d introduce legislation in the new parliament’s first sitting for the removal of federal funds from errant providers.
After ABC reporter Adele Ferguson had exposed serious safety issues in the system on Four Corners in March, the Albanese government announced it would be “exploring” various measures to strengthen Commonwealth powers “to deal with providers that put profit over quality and child safety at risk”.
In another expose, Ferguson this week revealed substantial problems in the training system for childcare workers.
Federally, childcare comes under the education minister, and there’s also a dedicated minister for early childhood education (Anne Aly last term, now Jess Walsh). Basically, the federal government funds the system while the states and territories regulate it.
Anthony Albanese made major promises for expanding childcare in his 2022 and 2025 election pitches. The government also supported higher wages for workers in the sector. Albanese has nominated “affordable childcare” as the legacy he wants to leave.
It’s all the more surprising, then, that the government didn’t seem to spot a plethora of problems in an area so central to the prime minister’s ambitions.
The government points to the division of responsibility between Commonwealth and states.
But surely that explanation doesn’t wash or, if it does, the relevant federal and state ministers, public servants and the regulators have not been doing their designated jobs effectively.
In various human service policy areas, there are split responsibilities, which differ in specific arrangements.
Politically, this often brings blame-shifting, and arguments over money and accountability.
The federal government attaches conditions, for example, to funding agreements for hospitals and schools, which fall under state responsibility. But in practice, there are slippages.
Split responsibilities, whatever their precise form, can never be “set and forget” – rigorous, constant scrutiny needs to be built in.
Childcare policy has its complications. But, in terms of complexities, it is nothing like, say, running the nation’s defences. There are not unknowns.
The obvious issues within childcare include funding, safety, workforce numbers and training.
The childcare revelations will inevitably lead to new regulations – ironically just as a debate about the desirability of easing excessive regulation in some sectors has become fashionable. In many policy areas, there are tensions between regulation and costs, and no unanimity about where the trade offs should be struck.
The childcare imbroglio highlights the challenges when public policy is substantially delivered by the “for profit” private sector. Social services expert Gabrielle Meagher, professor emerita at Macquarie University, says, “It’s very difficult to regulate across the gaps governments open up when they fund policies that they don’t deliver themselves”.
The childcare issue also invites much wider questions about how “governing” is working. Such as, are ministers too distracted?
Today’s ministers spend more time than ever in the media, and travelling (part of the modern “permanent” election campaign). This takes a large amount of their attention. The prime minister is in the media most days.
One has to wonder how much of this is a diversion for ministers from detailed policy work, especially as they must bone up on “talking points” because, given the 24-hour news cycle, they will be quizzed about issues outside their portfolios. They usually feel obliged to offer an opinion, rather than saying “sorry, that’s not my bag”.
What about the public servants, who are formally responsible for policy advice, implementation and supervising?
We saw with Robodebt shocking behaviour by some bureaucrats. There have been substantial reforms since then and, apart from that, the Albanese government has boosted the numbers and strengthened the capability of the public service.
But is it fit-for-purpose? If it were, wouldn’t the problems in childcare, apparently well-known among many parents, have filtered up through the system to the ears of ministers – even allowing that regulation rests mainly with the states?
Apart from failures by state regulators, one issue is who is telling what to whom about the sector. The federal minister responsible for early childhood education visits dozens of childcare centres. But on those visits, the minister will be talking to managers, who will have their own set of concerns. The minister is less likely at the centres to encounter parents who have had a bad experience.
This goes to a wider problem: in areas of human service delivery, providers of services will usually be organised, while consumers lack the same coherent and forceful voice. Complaining through the media may be only way for families using a service to bring things to light.
But what about the complaints that do flow into government departments, and ministers’ offices? Surely these give a channel for the red flags that point to a policy failure?
Bureaucrats say all this communication amounts to a great deal of “noise”, but the challenge is to identify what it signifies, in terms of substantive problems to be addressed.
When programs are growing very fast, the risk is that corners are cut in delivery. We saw this, disastrously, years ago during the global financial crisis when the Rudd government rolled out the home insulation scheme. A royal commission was damning about the failures of the program, which was marked by several deaths and many household fires. Safety had been compromised in the pursuit of speed and the delivery framework was inadequate.
There are many lessons from the childcare policy failures. A big announcement does not automatically mean a successful policy delivery. Programs can be working on some fronts while flawed on others. All new or expanded policies should come with detailed evaluation arrangements which are then carefully monitored. And while ministers will boast publicly about how well a policy is doing, they should be constantly demanding to know from their bureaucrats where things might be going wrong.
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.
On July 6, an arson attack targeted the East Melbourne Synagogue. It was the latest in a series of antisemitic incidents recorded across Australia since October 7 2023, when Hamas carried out a horrific terrorist attack, killing about 1,200 Israelis. These domestic incidents have escalated in both number and severity.
Australia has not previously experienced antisemitism at this scale. In response, the Albanese government appointed Jillian Segal as the nation’s first special envoy for combating antisemitism, and commissioned a plan with recommendations to address the issue.
1. Preventing violence and crime, including a proposed law enforcement framework to improve coordination between agencies, and new policies aimed at stopping dangerous individuals from entering Australia.
2. Strengthening protections against hate speech, by regulating all forms of hate, including antisemitism, and increasing oversight of platform policies and algorithms.
3. Promoting antisemitism-free media, education and cultural spaces, through journalist training, education programs, and conditions on public funding for organisations that promote or fail to address antisemitism.
The government has said it will consider the recommendations.
These measures are broadly reasonable and make practical sense. Some – such as those aimed at preventing violence and crime – are more straightforward to implement than others. It would also be logical to apply them to all forms of hate, not just antisemitism.
But that needs to be done with caution. We don’t want to create an environment in which any criticism of a community or group is shut down by regulation.
In a democracy, open and robust debate is essential. The challenge lies in the details: how we define hate, and where we draw the threshold for what counts as hate.
The document ignores the elephant in the room: whether the plan could be used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
The special envoy’s plan notes antisemitism has risen since October 7, but it does not fully explain the context. Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, has prompted a wave of global protest and criticism of Israel, including accusations of genocide.
In this context, the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel has become more difficult and contested than ever. Some people who attack Israel or Zionism may be expressing antisemitic views. Others may not. Distinguishing between the two is complex, but essential.
The envoy adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which covers both direct attacks on Jewish identity and certain criticisms of Israel, such as comparisons with Nazi Germany.
In my experience as a researcher working on online hate (including antisemitism), even members of the Jewish community adopting this definition often disagree on how to apply it.
The threshold varies – for example when deciding whether an online post or a statement crosses the line into antisemitism.
So where should we draw that line? It’s a crucial question. If the envoy’s recommendations are implemented, decisions about funding, visas, and even criminal charges could depend on it.
There is, of course, broad agreement on some cases. Setting fire to a synagogue is clearly antisemitic – it targets a Jewish place of worship.
Similarly, attacking a Jewish-owned business or damaging property in a Jewish neighbourhood suggests the target was chosen because it was Jewish.
Some people – often those already harbouring anti-Jewish views – treat the entire Jewish community as if it represents the Netanyahu government or the Israel Defense Forces.
This ignores the diversity of views within Jewish communities. That lack of nuance fuels antisemitism.
Few would disagree that antisemitic acts include attacks on Jewish people or property carried out indiscriminately, or when anti-Israel protests attempt to hold the whole Jewish community collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.
But we also need to be realistic. We are unlikely to eliminate all forms of antisemitic hate or intimidation from public life. Hate can be expressed without breaching laws, and people can intimidate others while staying just within legal boundaries.
Humour, sarcasm and coded language are often used to incite hatred without triggering any formal consequence. That kind of harm is much harder to prevent – and it may be something we have to learn to live with, while continuing to push back against it.
Rebuilding trust
In the long term, the only real solution is building mutual understanding. That’s why personal relationships matter.
Knowing someone who is Jewish is one of the strongest antidotes to antisemitism. When you have a Jewish friend, you’re less likely to believe or spread the myths that circulate online and offline about what Jewish people think, believe or represent.
The same applies to all forms of hate. Direct contact helps break down stereotypes across all communities.
The problem is that the current context is pushing communities apart. Segregation and isolation are increasing. Before October 7, there was meaningful interfaith work happening – Jewish students visiting the Islamic Museum, Muslim students visiting the Holocaust Museum. That work has largelystopped.
Now, people are retreating into fear, distrust and generalisations. All nuance is lost. The “other” becomes a single, threatening enemy.
It will take time to rebuild that trust – and the longer the war continues, the harder it will be.
Matteo Vergani receives funding from the Campbell Collaboration, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Home Affairs.
On July 6, an arson attack targeted the East Melbourne Synagogue. It was the latest in a series of antisemitic incidents recorded across Australia since October 7 2023, when Hamas carried out a horrific terrorist attack, killing about 1,200 Israelis. These domestic incidents have escalated in both number and severity.
Australia has not previously experienced antisemitism at this scale. In response, the Albanese government appointed Jillian Segal as the nation’s first special envoy for combating antisemitism, and commissioned a plan with recommendations to address the issue.
1. Preventing violence and crime, including a proposed law enforcement framework to improve coordination between agencies, and new policies aimed at stopping dangerous individuals from entering Australia.
2. Strengthening protections against hate speech, by regulating all forms of hate, including antisemitism, and increasing oversight of platform policies and algorithms.
3. Promoting antisemitism-free media, education and cultural spaces, through journalist training, education programs, and conditions on public funding for organisations that promote or fail to address antisemitism.
The government has said it will consider the recommendations.
These measures are broadly reasonable and make practical sense. Some – such as those aimed at preventing violence and crime – are more straightforward to implement than others. It would also be logical to apply them to all forms of hate, not just antisemitism.
But that needs to be done with caution. We don’t want to create an environment in which any criticism of a community or group is shut down by regulation.
In a democracy, open and robust debate is essential. The challenge lies in the details: how we define hate, and where we draw the threshold for what counts as hate.
The document ignores the elephant in the room: whether the plan could be used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
The special envoy’s plan notes antisemitism has risen since October 7, but it does not fully explain the context. Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, has prompted a wave of global protest and criticism of Israel, including accusations of genocide.
In this context, the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel has become more difficult and contested than ever. Some people who attack Israel or Zionism may be expressing antisemitic views. Others may not. Distinguishing between the two is complex, but essential.
The envoy adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which covers both direct attacks on Jewish identity and certain criticisms of Israel, such as comparisons with Nazi Germany.
In my experience as a researcher working on online hate (including antisemitism), even members of the Jewish community adopting this definition often disagree on how to apply it.
The threshold varies – for example when deciding whether an online post or a statement crosses the line into antisemitism.
So where should we draw that line? It’s a crucial question. If the envoy’s recommendations are implemented, decisions about funding, visas, and even criminal charges could depend on it.
There is, of course, broad agreement on some cases. Setting fire to a synagogue is clearly antisemitic – it targets a Jewish place of worship.
Similarly, attacking a Jewish-owned business or damaging property in a Jewish neighbourhood suggests the target was chosen because it was Jewish.
Some people – often those already harbouring anti-Jewish views – treat the entire Jewish community as if it represents the Netanyahu government or the Israel Defense Forces.
This ignores the diversity of views within Jewish communities. That lack of nuance fuels antisemitism.
Few would disagree that antisemitic acts include attacks on Jewish people or property carried out indiscriminately, or when anti-Israel protests attempt to hold the whole Jewish community collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.
But we also need to be realistic. We are unlikely to eliminate all forms of antisemitic hate or intimidation from public life. Hate can be expressed without breaching laws, and people can intimidate others while staying just within legal boundaries.
Humour, sarcasm and coded language are often used to incite hatred without triggering any formal consequence. That kind of harm is much harder to prevent – and it may be something we have to learn to live with, while continuing to push back against it.
Rebuilding trust
In the long term, the only real solution is building mutual understanding. That’s why personal relationships matter.
Knowing someone who is Jewish is one of the strongest antidotes to antisemitism. When you have a Jewish friend, you’re less likely to believe or spread the myths that circulate online and offline about what Jewish people think, believe or represent.
The same applies to all forms of hate. Direct contact helps break down stereotypes across all communities.
The problem is that the current context is pushing communities apart. Segregation and isolation are increasing. Before October 7, there was meaningful interfaith work happening – Jewish students visiting the Islamic Museum, Muslim students visiting the Holocaust Museum. That work has largelystopped.
Now, people are retreating into fear, distrust and generalisations. All nuance is lost. The “other” becomes a single, threatening enemy.
It will take time to rebuild that trust – and the longer the war continues, the harder it will be.
Matteo Vergani receives funding from the Campbell Collaboration, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Home Affairs.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Georgette Leah Burns, Associate Professor, Griffith School of Environment and Science, Griffith University
Luciano Gonzalez/Anadolu via Getty Images
Last weekend, a woman was mauled by a lioness at Darling Downs Zoo in Queensland, and lost her arm. The zoo, which keeps nine lions, has been operating for 20 years and had never experienced an incident such as this.
The victim was a relative of the zoo owner, Steve Robinson, who told the media the lions were not aggressive and the lioness was thought to be “just playing”.
Although attacks like this are extremely rare, they are obviously of great concern. The incident should prompt a rethink of our approach to wild animals in captivity, and whether it’s morally acceptable – or safe – to keep them there at all.
Why do zoos exist?
Zoos, aquariums and other settings where wild animals are kept captive exist for two main reasons: human entertainment and profit-making.
Surveys show zoo visitors have a preference for large mammals such as elephants, primates and big cats.
Some animals are more tolerant of captivity conditions and exposure to humans than others. Fish, for example, seem to respond more neutrally to human presence than most other species.
But a recent study found captive animals generally demonstrate abnormal behaviour more often than non-captive ones.
For most wild animals, captivity deprives them of the ability to engage in natural behaviour, which harms their welfare. For example, free-living dolphins and whales have long-range migration patterns which require vast ocean spaces. They are also highly social and display complex communication behaviour.
Captive dolphins were once common in aquariums and marine parks across Australia. But now only one facility, Sea World in Queensland, still breeds dolphins for entertainment.
Another important welfare question is whether the captive animal has “agency” – that is, whether it can make choices as it would in the wild.
Can it choose, for example, which other animals it has relationships with? Or whether it has privacy? Having control over such decisions enhances the quality of life for the captive animal.
It’s important to note that some zoos can deliver positive outcomes for animals. Many play an important conservation role, such as running captive breeding programs for endangered species.
An example is a long-running program across several Australian zoos and other organisations to recover populations of the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater. The program has released more than 400 zoo-bred birds into the wild.
However, such conservation programs do not necessarily need to involve zoos to succeed.
Weighing up the risks
No matter how domesticated they might seem, some wild animals in captivity will always pose a risk to humans. Their behaviour can be unpredictable and, as the recent Queensland example shows, even a “playing” lioness can cause enormous physical harm to people.
Wild animals are called wild for a reason. To be kept in captivity, most animals require training so they can be safely handled. The Darling Downs Zoo incident shows despite this precaution, things can still go wrong.
But humans will, understandably, always be fascinated by other animals, and want to see them up close. So what are the alternatives to zoos?
Open range-zoos, such as the one to which the Perth elephants were moved, can offer a better option for some animals.
Another option is to recreate the zoo experience using technology. Artificial intelligence, virtual reality and augmented reality can be used to create images of animals that look and seem real.
Questions about animals kept in captivity require us to consider how much risk to human safety we accept, and the extent to which we prioritise human amusement over animal welfare. In searching for answers, we can start by asking whether we need zoos at all.
Georgette Leah Burns 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.
Australia’s drug approval system is under fire, with critics in the United States claiming it is too slow to approve life-saving medicines.
Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration balances speed with a rigorous assessment of safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
So does Australia really lag behind the US Food and Drug Administration? And do we need to change how we approve medicines?
The drug development pipeline
Drug development usually begins when something new is discovered about a disease. This usually involves identifying either a change in an important protein or finding a new protein involved in the disease.
When scientists know the shape of the protein, they can design a drug that can block or activate it.
Scientists will then undertake laboratory, petri dish-type, experiments to see if the drug works on the protein in the way they designed. If it passes those tests, they will then move onto animal testing and formulation.
Formulation is the step where scientists decide what form the medicine will take, such as a tablet, injection or patch. There are more than 150 different pharmaceutical dosage forms to choose from.
The final steps are human testing. This requires the completion of three types of clinical trials. Each seeks to answer different specific questions about the drug:
Phase I trials: is the drug safe? What are its side effects?
Phase II trials: does the drug work?
Phase III trials: is the drug better than currently available medicines?
At the end of the trials, a company can apply to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for approval to market and sell the drug.
Getting a drug to market is time-consuming and costly. It takes around 15 years from the initial concept and design to government approval and costs more than A$3.5 billion.
But the failure rate is high: more than 90% of drugs that undergo development never gain government approval.
How are drugs approved in Australia?
The decision to approve new medicines for sale in Australia is made based on safety and efficacy evidence provided by the sponsoring company.
Listing a medicine on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is a separate process from approval, and is based on financial considerations and a cost-benefit analysis, rather than safety and efficacy.
The TGA typically takes 240 to 260 working days (around a full calendar year) from receiving a new medicine application to an approval decision. This is longer than it takes the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – 180 to 300 days.
Where there is a pressing need, the approval process can be faster. The first COVID treatment was approved in Australia just two weeks after it was submitted for consideration.
Then why do Americans often get medicines first?
There can be several reasons why a drug approval can be delayed in Australia when it has already been approved overseas.
First, with a population of 27 million out of 8 billion world-wide, Australia is a relatively small market. So it is not always a high priority for companies to apply for approval here. Regions with large populations such as China, India and Europe are a bigger focus for companies. This can therefore delay when they submit to Australia.
Other reasons for delays can be that the TGA requires additional safety or efficacy evidence other regions did not request, or because new information about the drug has come to light since the drug was approved overseas.
What about delays getting drugs onto the PBS?
When a drug is listed on the PBS, Australians can access the medicine for $31.60 (or $7.70 concession) instead of the cost of a private prescription which might be hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
The time it takes for medicines to be approved on the PBS has also been a focus of criticism.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), which makes PBS listing recommendations to the Federal Minister of Health, only sits three to six times per year.
US Chamber of Commerce vice president John Murphy claims the PBAC takes, on average, 32 months to make a recommendation about listing a drug after an application has been submitted.
Once a recommendation is made, the minister usually takes a minimum of five months to make a final decision.
To speed up the process, the TGA does allow parallel applications for drug approval and PBS listing.
The time taken to make a PBS listing decision is reasonable, given the scheme’s overall cost. In 2023–24, the total cost of the PBS to the government was $17.7 billion. So a decision to list can’t be made lightly.
So should Australia change how it approves medicines?
Criticising the time it takes to get regulatory approvals appears to be part of a wider plan of attack by the US government. It is putting pressure on Australia to open its market to higher prices for medicines made by US pharmaceutical companies.
Australia has a world-class regulatory agency in the TGA which ensures medicines that are approved are both safe and effective. And the PBS scheme is a key part of our public health care system and the envy of the world.
The Australian government should resist any changes to the regulatory approval processes that come from the US.
Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. He is a member of the Haleon Australia Pty Ltd Pain Advisory Board. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is “forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other”.
Trump, who has craved the award for years, sees himself as a global peacemaker in a raft of conflicts from Israel and Iran, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
With the conflict in Gaza still raging, we ask five experts – could Trump be rewarded with the world’s most prestigious peace prize?
Emma Shortis
Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University
Nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is like entering a hyena in a dog show.
Of course Trump does not deserve it. That we’re being forced to take this question seriously is yet another indication – as if we needed one – of his extraordinary ability to set and reset the terms of our politics.
There is no peace in Gaza. Even if Trump announced another ceasefire tomorrow, it would not last. And it would not build genuine peace and security.
Trump has neither the interest nor the attention span required to build long term peace. His administration is not willing to bear any of the costs or investments that come with genuine, lasting diplomacy. And he is not anti-war.
There is no peace in Iran. Trump’s bombing of Iran simply exacerbates his decision in 2018 to end nuclear negotiations with Tehran. It pushes the world closer to, not further from, nuclear catastrophe.
Under the Trump administration, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Both the US and Israeli governments’ approach to “security” puts the region on a perpetual war footing. This approach assumes it is possible to bomb your way to peace – a “peace” which both Trump and Netanyahu understand as total dominance and violent oppression.
The Trump administration is deliberately undermining the institutions and principles of international and domestic law.
He has deployed the military against American citizens. He is threatening the United States’ traditional allies with trade wars and annexation. His administration’s dismantling of USAID will result, according to one study, in the deaths of 14 million people, including 4.5 million children, by 2030.
Indulging Trump’s embarrassing desire for trophies might appease him for a short time. It would also strip the Nobel Peace Prize of any and all credibility, while endorsing Trump’s trashing of the international rule of law.
What kind of peace is that?
Ali Mamouri
Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University
The nomination of Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize by a man who is facing charges of war crimes is an unprecedented and deeply dark irony that cannot be overlooked.
Trump’s role in brokering the Abraham Accords was hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough. It led to the normalisation of relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.
But this achievement came at a significant cost. The accords deliberately sidelined the Palestinian issue, long recognised as the core of regional instability, and disregarded decades of international consensus on a two-state solution.
Israeli soldiers guarding Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. Dom Zaran/Shutterstock
His silence in the face of a growing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza was equally telling. Perhaps most disturbing was the tacit or explicit endorsement of proposals to forcibly relocate Palestinians to neighbouring Arab countries, a position that evokes ethnic cleansing and fundamentally undermines principles of justice, dignity and international law.
In addition, there is Trump’s unconditional support for Israel’s military campaigns across the region, including his authorisation of attacks on Iranian civilian, military and nuclear infrastructure. The strikes lacked any clear legal basis, contributed further to regional instability and, according to Tehran, killed more than a thousand civilians.
His broader disregard for international norms shattered decades of post-second world war diplomatic order and increased the risk of sustained and expanded conflict.
Against this backdrop, any serious consideration of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize seems fundamentally at odds with its stated mission: to honour efforts that reduce conflict, uphold human rights and promote lasting peace.
Whatever short-term diplomatic gains emerged from Trump’s tenure are eclipsed by the legal, ethical and humanitarian consequences of his actions.
Ian Parmeter
Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University
Netanyahu’s nomination of Donald Trump for one of the world’s most coveted awards was clearly aimed at flattering the president.
Trump is clearly angling for the laurel, which his first term predecessor, Barack Obama, won in his first year in office.
Obama was awarded the prize in 2009 for promotion of nuclear non-proliferation and fostering a “new climate” in international relations, particularly in reaching out to the Muslim world.
Given neither of these ambitions have since borne fruit, what claims might Trump reasonably make at this stage of his second term?
Trump has claimed credit for resolving two conflicts this year: the brief India–Pakistan clash that erupted after Pakistani militants killed 25 Indian tourists in Kashmir in May; and the long-running dispute between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi disputes Trump brokered peace. He says the issue was resolved by negotiations between the two countries’ militaries.
With regards to the Rwanda–DRC conflict, the countries signed a peace agreement in the Oval Office in June. But critics argue Qatar played a significant role
which the Trump administration has airbrushed out.
Trump can legitimately argue his pressure on Israel and Iran forced a ceasefire in their 12-day war in June.
But his big test is the Gaza war. For Trump to add this to his Nobel claim, he will need more than a ceasefire.
The Biden administration brokered two ceasefires that enabled the release of significant numbers of hostages, but did not end the conflict.
Trump would have to use his undoubted influence with Netanyahu to achieve more than a temporary pause. He would have to end the war definitively and effect the release of all Israeli hostages.
Beyond that, if Trump could persuade Netanyahu
to take serious steps towards negotiating a two-state solution, that would be a genuine Nobel-worthy achievement.
Trump isn’t there yet.
Jasmine-Kim Westendorf
Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict and Co-Director of the Initiative for Peacebuilding, The University of Melbourne
Although controversial or politicised awards are not new, awardees are generally individuals or groups who’ve made
significant contributions to a range of peace initiatives.
They include reducing armed conflict, enhancing international cooperation, and human rights efforts that contribute to peace.
Inspiring examples include anti-nuclear proliferation organisations and phenomenal women peacemakers. And Nadia Murad and Denis Mukwege, who won in 2011 for their work trying to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.
Trump has declared his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier”. But he is neither.
There has been a concerning trend towards using the Nobel Peace Prize to encourage certain political directions, rather than reward achievements.
Barack Obama’s 2008 Prize helped motivate his moves toward diplomacy and cooperation after the presidency of George W. Bush.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s 2018 award was for efforts to resolve the 20-year war with Eritrea. The peace prize encouraged Ahmed to fulfill his promise of democratic elections in 2020. Embarrassingly, within a year Ahmed launched a civil war that killed over 600,000 people and displaced 3 million more.
This week’s nomination follows efforts by global leaders to flatter Trump in order – they hope – to secure his goodwill.
These motivations explain why Netanyahu has put forward Trump’s name to the Nobel Committee. It comes at the very moment securing Trump’s ongoing support during ceasefire negotiations is critical for Netanyahu’s political survival.
They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize […] It’s too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me.
Prizes to genuine peacemakers amplify their work and impact.
1984 winner Desmond Tutu said: “One day no one was listening. The next, I was an oracle.” A Nobel can be a powerful force for peace.
Trump is no peacemaker, he doesn’t deserve one.
Shahram Akbarzadeh
Director, Middle East Studies Forum (MESF), Deakin University
Benjamin Netanyahu would have us believe Donald Trump is a peacemaker.
Nothing could be further from the truth. His record is stained with blood and misery. The fact Trump believes himself to be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize only attests to his illusions of grandeur in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The war in Gaza has gone into its 20th month because Trump did not use the levers at his control to bring the senseless war to a close.
Some estimates put the true Gaza death toll at 100,000 people, and counting. They have been killed by American-made bombs Israel is dropping across the densely populated strip; from starvation because Israel has enforced a blockade of the Gaza Strip and prevented UN food delivery with the blessings of America; and from gunshots at food distribution centres, set up with US private security.
All under Trump’s watch.
Trump could do something about this. Israel is the largest recipient of US aid, most of it military support.
This has multiplied since Israel commenced its attack on Gaza in response to Hamas terrorism on October 7 2023. Trump has approved the transfer of US military hardware to Israel, knowing full well it was being used against a trapped and helpless population.
This is not the act of a peacemaker.
Now the Israeli government is planning to “facilitate” population transfer of Gazans to other countries – a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.
This is the textbook definition of genocide: deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of people. Trump legitimised this travesty of decency and international law by promising a Gaza Riviera.
The outlandish extent of Trump’s ideas would be laughable if their consequences were not so devastating.
When Israel attacked Iran in the middle of nuclear talks, Trump had a momentary pause, before jumping to Netanyahu’s aid and bombing Iran. He then claimed his action paved the way for peace.
Trump’s idea of peace is the peace of the graveyard.
Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.
Jasmine-Kim Westendorf has received funding from the Australian Research Council.
Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australia Research Council.
Ali Mamouri and Ian Parmeter 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.
If you watched any of the 2025 Wimbledon womens’ matches, you’ll have noticed many players donning a skort: a garment in which shorts are concealed under a skirt, or a front panel resembling a skirt.
You may even remember skorts from your schooling days, as they’re commonly offered in girls’ uniforms throughout Australia.
The skort (a portmanteau of skirt and shorts) has played a truly unique role in the history of women’s clothing. They were once a progressive item of clothing, as they afforded women the opportunity to partake in activities that would have been difficult in a skirt or dress.
Their role in contemporary society, however, is a bit more complicated.
Rebellious beginnings
The first garments resembling skorts were developed in the 1890s so women could ride bicycles without their skirt getting caught in the chains. While the puffy “bloomers” had already been invented a few decades earlier, women who wore them often faced ridicule.
Skorts were considered revolutionary at a time when men both figuratively and literally wore the pants.
Back then, they were usually a pair of loose pants under a front panel resembling a skirt. The aim was to retain the wearer’s femininity, and not offend those who thought pants were a purely masculine article of clothing.
A drawing from an 1896 patent of a ‘cycling skirt’.
The skort as we know it today, and as is seen across the sporting world, was popularised in the 1960s by American fashion designer Leon Levin.
This skirt was said to offer “the freedom of shorts and soft lines of a skirt”. The underlying message: even as women participate in traditionally “masculine” activities, they should be careful not to look too masculine.
Sport management academic M. Katie Flanagan argues women may be convinced that exercising in a skort achieves an acceptable gender performance. In other words, they are socialised to think they have to “perform” their gender by wearing the “correct” clothing.
Skorts in sport and school
In the sporting world, skorts are deliberately designed to be trendy and attractive, rather than purely functional.
One study on women golfers found they were more satisfied with their uniforms if they were happy with both the comfort and attractiveness, indicating women’s sportswear isn’t just about fit and practicality.
Skorts have historically also had class associations. As recently as ten years ago, sport skorts were an expensive item reserved for those from the middle and upper classes. Women from lower economic classes also tended to not have the time and/or resources to engage in the activities skorts were designed for, namely tennis and golf.
More recently, however, discount stores have made skorts accessible to those on a budget.
School skorts, a topic of my ongoing research, are particularly affordable at discount stores. A generic discount store skort may cost about A$10, compared to A$20–40 for one purchased directly from a school.
Some schools offer skorts to girls as the equivalent of sports shorts or as part of the everyday uniform. Other schools seem to prefer culottes as an alternative to a dress or skirt – shorts that are loose enough to resemble a skirt.
Many schools still don’t offer shorts to girls as part of the everyday uniform. Whether or not girls are allowed to wear the “boys’” shorts comes down to the individual school.
From rebellion to restriction
One 2019 review of school uniform policies in South Australia found 98.6% of public schools included shorts as a uniform option for girls, compared to just 26.4% of private schools.
Researchers Sarah Cohen-Woods and Rachel Laattoe found girls in private schools were often restricted in their choices, having to choose between skorts and culottes as an alternative to a skirt or dress.
Across Australia, all state and territory education policies – most of which came into effect between 2017 and 2019 – mandate public schools must offer girls the option of wearing shorts and pants.
However, the wordings of these policies differ widely. While New South Wales, Victoria and Norther Territory specifically mention shorts and pants must be offered to girls, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania specify schools must offer unisex or gender neutral items to all students.
South Australia’s and Australian Capital Territory’s policies further state uniform items should be categorised by type of clothing, or in non-gender specific terms.
However, in some states, including New South Wales, schools are free to interpret the policy as they wish, which is why some only offer culottes or skorts to girls. There is generally no oversight or enforcement of policies to force schools to offer actual shorts to girls.
A similar debate is happening in women’s sports. Ireland’s Camogie Association only ended the compulsory skorts policy in May, after years of complaints by players. Dublin captain Aisling Maher said she was “sick of being forced to wear a skort that is uncomfortable and unfit for purpose”.
“In no other facet of my life does someone dictate that I have to wear something resembling a skirt because I am a girl. Why is it happening in my sport?” Maher said.
A camogie team pictured in Waterford, Ireland, 1915. The Irish stick-and-ball team sport is played by women. Wikimedia
A garment for the male gaze
In recent years, many stores have advertised skorts for fashion. Target, for instance, currently sells a tailored skort described as a “must have for any trendsetter looking to stand out in a crowd”.
There are conflicting arguments about whether skorts are progressive or regressive. On one hand, they allow women and girls to move freely during physical activities, without having to worry about their underwear being visible.
On the other, they set a precedent in regards to how women and girls ought to perform their gender, by avoiding looking too “masculine” – which makes them somewhat misogynistic.
The skort is an object of dual meanings: at once a skirt and a pair of shorts – at once progressive and regressive.
Jennifer E. Cheng 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.
