NewzIntel.com

Category: Features

  • MIL-Evening Report: Global warming is changing cloud patterns. That means more global warming

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Jakob, Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Monash University

    Caleb Weiner / Unsplash

    At any given time, about two-thirds of Earth’s surface is covered by clouds. Overall, they make the planet much cooler than it would be without them.

    But as Earth gets warmer, mostly due to the rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels, clouds are changing too. And that might already be causing more warming – adding to the greenhouse heat boost, and changing clouds even more.

    Over the past few years, the world’s average temperature has increased more than climate scientists were expecting. In our latest research, led by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, we show that changes in clouds have made a significant contribution to turning up the thermostat.

    Clouds and climate

    Clouds help to keep Earth cool by reflecting sunlight back out to space before it can reach the ground. But not all clouds are equal.

    Shiny, white clouds reflect away more sunlight – especially when they are closer to the equator, in the parts of Earth that receive the most sun. Grey, broken clouds reflect less sunlight, as do clouds closer to the poles where less light falls.

    Research published last year showed that Earth has been absorbing more sunlight than the greenhouse effect alone can explain. Clouds were involved, but it wasn’t clear exactly how.

    Bright cloud zones are shrinking

    Our new study shows what is happening. The areas covered by highly reflective clouds are shrinking. At the same time, the areas containing broken, less reflective clouds are growing.

    The net effect is that additional energy from sunlight is reaching Earth’s surface. Here it is absorbed, leading to extra heating.

    We also looked at the effect of changes in the properties of the highly reflective clouds, caused by things such as changes in the amount of aerosol pollution in the atmosphere. However, we found these effects are much smaller than the effect of the change in area.

    The global picture

    In the big picture, Earth’s wind patterns are driven by hot air rising near the equator and the rotation of the planet. This creates huge, looping currents of atmospheric circulation around the globe.

    Local weather systems – the kind that determine the location and type of clouds – depend on these major, large-scale wind systems. The major circulation patterns in the atmosphere are changing as a result of global warming.

    We found much of the cloud action is taking place at the edges of these major wind systems.

    Cloud cover is changing in several parts of Earth.
    NASA Earth Observatory

    Highly reflective clouds are on the decline in a region near the equator called the intertropical convergence zone, and also two other bands called the storm tracks, which lie between 30 and 40 degrees of latitude.

    At the same time the subtropical trade-wind regions, home to ever-present but less reflective broken clouds, are expanding.

    A feedback loop

    In short, the global warming induced by increased greenhouse gases changes the major wind systems on Earth. This in turn reduces the area of highly reflective clouds, leading to additional warming.

    Warming changes wind patterns, which changes cloud patterns, which results in more warming. This is what we call a “positive feedback” in the climate system: warming leads to more warming.

    We still have a lot to learn about the details of this feedback loop. Our research will use ongoing satellite-based observations of clouds and how much energy Earth receives and radiates back out to space.

    Christian Jakob receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Global warming is changing cloud patterns. That means more global warming – https://theconversation.com/global-warming-is-changing-cloud-patterns-that-means-more-global-warming-259376

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

    The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US. Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images

    Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel.

    The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen “bunker buster” bombs at Fordow and Natanz.

    The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes.

    The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

    What are ‘bunker busters’, and why are they used?

    Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs.

    Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface.

    Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil.

    What is the MOP?

    The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known buster buster in the world.

    Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total).

    We also don’t know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal.

    Why does only the US possess this capability?

    The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it.

    Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America’s 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation.

    There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical.

    Why has the US (apparently) used them in Iran

    The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community.

    However, Israel lacks bunker busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    An F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 ‘bunker buster’ laser-guided bomb, a smaller equivalewnt of the 13,600 kg GBU-57 ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’ believed to have been used in Iran.
    Michael Ammons / US Air Force

    Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities.

    The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true.

    Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country.

    Iran’s reaction

    The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks.

    Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications.

    Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    The value of nuclear weapons

    Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran’s desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today’s attack.

    Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi’s regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention.

    By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea.

    Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Depending on what facilities and resources have survive the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons.

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

    – ref. What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-bunker-buster-an-expert-explains-what-the-us-dropped-on-iran-259508

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. Here are 3 scenarios for what might happen next

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University

    After prevaricating about whether the United States would enter Israel’s war on Iran, President Donald Trump finally made a decision.

    Early Sunday, US warplanes struck three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, where the Iranians have a uranium enrichment plant buried about 80 metres beneath a mountain.

    These strikes have to be viewed as part of an overall continuum that began with the Gaza war following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then continued with Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah (the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon) and the fall of the Iran-backed Assad regime in Syria.

    Iran has never been weaker than it is now. And when Trump said it may take two weeks for him to decide whether to bomb Iran, the Israelis likely pushed him to act sooner.

    We can assume there was a lot of Israeli pressure on Trump to use the massive ordnance penetrators, the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) “bunker buster” bombs that only the US can deploy with its B2 bombers.

    Now that Trump has taken the significant step of entering the US in yet another Middle East war, where could things go from here? There are a few possible scenarios.

    Iran strikes back

    The Iranians know they don’t have the strength to take on the US, and that the Americans can do enormous damage to their country and even put the Iranian regime’s stability at risk.

    This is always the prime consideration of of the clerical regime led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – everything else is subordinate to that.

    To gauge Iran’s possible reaction, we can look at the how it responded to the first Trump administration’s assassination of the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, in January 2020.

    Iran said there would be a major reaction, but all it did was launch a barrage of missiles at two American bases in Iraq, which caused no US fatalities and very little damage. After that token retaliation, Iran said the matter was closed.

    Iran’s reaction to the new US strikes will likely be along these lines. It probably won’t want to get into a tit-for-tat with the US by launching attacks against American facilities in the region. Trump has promised to respond with force:

    Iran, a bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.

    It’s also unclear how long Iran will be able to prosecute this war. This depends largely on how many ballistic missiles and launchers it has left.

    There are various estimates as to how many ballistic missiles Iran may have remaining in its stockpiles. It was believed to have about 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Israel at the start of the war. Some estimates say Iran has fired 700 of them; others say around 400. Whatever the number is, its stockpiles are dwindling quickly.

    Israel has also destroyed about a third of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers. If Israel is able to destroy all of them, Iran would have very limited ability to fight back.

    Iran backs down

    Before the US got involved in the conflict, Iran said it was prepared to negotiate, but it wouldn’t do so while Israel was still attacking.

    So, one scenario is that some sort of compromise can now be worked out, in which Israel announces a ceasefire and Iran and the US agree to resume negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program.

    The big problem is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he doesn’t trust the negotiating process and he doesn’t want to stop Israel’s military actions until all of Iran’s nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed. He’s also been bombing Iran’s oil terminals and gas facilities to put even more pressure on the regime.

    But the regime has shown itself to be incredibly determined not to lose face. It was under great pressure at different times during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and never considered surrendering until a US missile mistakenly took down an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people.

    Iran then agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire. But the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, causing an estimated one million deaths. And when the then-supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, agreed to the ceasefire, he said it was “worse than drinking poison”.

    Given the state of Iran’s military capabilities, Khamenei, the current supreme leader, might surrender simply to try to preserve the regime. But this would be quite a climbdown as far as he’s concerned, and he has been very obstinate in the past.

    The regime is very unpopular, but the Iranian people, in my experience, are strongly patriotic – loyal to their country, if not the regime. Though it’s difficult to gauge opinion in a country of 90 million people, a lot of Iranians would not want to be ordered to do anything by the US or Israel, and would rather fight on.

    Netanyahu has said he wants to create the conditions for the Iranian people to rise up against the regime.

    But it’s worth bearing in mind that the opposite of autocracy is not necessarily democracy. It could possibly be chaos. Iran has a number of different ethnic groups and there may be huge disagreements over what should take the place of the clerical regime, were it to fall.

    At this stage, the regime will probably be able to hold together. And even if Khameini were to die suddenly, the regime will likely be able to quickly replace him.

    Though we don’t know his probable successor, the regime has had plenty of time to plan for this. Those in senior positions will also know that a post-Khamenei succession struggle really would put the regime at risk.

    The US engagement is limited

    According to the new polling by The Economist and YouGov, released on June 17, 60% of Americans were opposed to joining the conflict between Israel and Iran, with just 16% in favour. Among Republicans, 53% opposed military action.

    So, these strikes were not an obviously popular move among Americans at this stage. However, if this is an isolated event and succeeds in bringing a swift end to the war, Trump will probably be applauded by a majority of Americans.

    If the US has to go back with more bombers – or there are serious attacks on US interests in the region – there could be more adverse reactions among Americans.

    Another question is whether Iran’s 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium have been destroyed in the US attack.

    If it hasn’t been destroyed, and depending how much damage has been done to its centrifuges, Iran may be able to reconstruct its nuclear program relatively quickly. And it could have more incentive to further enrich this uranium to 90% purity, or weapons-grade level, to build a nuclear device.

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

    – ref. The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. Here are 3 scenarios for what might happen next – https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-entered-the-israel-iran-war-here-are-3-scenarios-for-what-might-happen-next-259509

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Muted response from Albanese government on US attack on Iran

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

    The Albanese government has given a tepid response to the United States’ bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    The Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement from a government spokesperson, but there were no plans on Sunday afternoon for Anthony Albanese or any minister to front the media.

    This contrasted with the full support given by the opposition, which said, “the Coalition stands with the United States of America today. We can never allow the Iranian regime the capacity to enact its objectives of the destruction of the United States and Israel.”

    The government has constantly urged deescalation of the Middle East conflict.

    The government spokesperson’s statement recognised the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program but did not specifically refer to the American military action.

    It said: “we have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security.”

    “We note the US President’s statement that now is the time for peace.

    “The security situation in the region is highly volatile.

    “We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.

    “Australians in Israel and Iran and the region should continue to monitor public safety information provided by local authorities, including to shelter in place when required.

    “The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be communicating directly with registered Australians about preparations for assisted departures.”

    Earlier, Defence Minister Richard Marles, interviewed before news of the US bombing, said the Australian government was making it clear it saw the Iranian program as a threat to the peace and stability of the region and the world.

    “What we’re saying in relation to this specific conflict is that we are worried about its prospect for escalation,” he said.

    Marles, who will attend this week NATO summit at The Hague, declined to say whether he had conversations or communication with US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth in the last week or so to discuss the American position.

    But he told Sky: “America is considering its position. So, exactly where America stands is a matter which is under consideration right now”.

    He said the US had been holding a defensive posture in support of their assets and people in the region.

    “We obviously understand that. And they too have been making arguments in relation to there being greater dialogue around this question and in this moment.”

    Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and acting Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Andrew Hastie released a statement saying,

    “The world can never accept a nuclear-armed Iranian regime and today the United States military has taken proactive action to ensure that we never need to.

    “A nuclear armed Iranian regime would be a serious and direct threat to world peace and stability, especially as it continues to engage in terrorism including by supporting its proxies: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.”

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

    – ref. Muted response from Albanese government on US attack on Iran – https://theconversation.com/muted-response-from-albanese-government-on-us-attack-on-iran-259510

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran – and what might happen now

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

    The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US. Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images

    Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel.

    The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen “bunker buster” bombs at Fordow and Natanz.

    The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes.

    The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

    What are ‘bunker busters’, and why are they used?

    Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs.

    Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface.

    Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil.

    What is the MOP?

    The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known buster buster in the world.

    Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total).

    We also don’t know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal.

    Why does only the US possess this capability?

    The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it.

    Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America’s 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation.

    There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical.

    Why has the US (apparently) used them in Iran

    The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community.

    However, Israel lacks bunker busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    An F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 ‘bunker buster’ laser-guided bomb, a smaller equivalewnt of the 13,600 kg GBU-57 ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’ believed to have been used in Iran.
    Michael Ammons / US Air Force

    Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities.

    The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true.

    Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country.

    Iran’s reaction

    The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks.

    Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications.

    Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    The value of nuclear weapons

    Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran’s desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today’s attack.

    Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi’s regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention.

    By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea.

    Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Depending on what facilities and resources have survive the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons.

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

    – ref. What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran – and what might happen now – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-bunker-buster-an-expert-explains-what-the-us-dropped-on-iran-and-what-might-happen-now-259508

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO

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

    Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.

    The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.

    The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.

    Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
    sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.

    So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.

    Australia closes embassy in Tehran

    Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.

    Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.

    “At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”

    Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”

    Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.

    Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.

    Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.

    Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.

    About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.

    Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).

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

    – ref. View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-decides-against-pursuing-donald-trump-to-nato-258972

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO

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

    Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.

    The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.

    The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.

    Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
    sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.

    So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.

    Australia closes embassy in Tehran

    Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.

    Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.

    “At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”

    Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”

    Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.

    Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.

    Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.

    Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.

    About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.

    Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).

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

    – ref. View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-decides-against-pursuing-donald-trump-to-nato-258972

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia wants more foreign investment. That’s why a $29 billion bid for Santos puts the Treasurer in a tricky position

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shumi Akhtar, Associate Professor, University of Sydney

    Marlon Trottmann/Shutterstock

    The Australian origins of Santos have made an indelible mark on the company’s very name. The energy giant was first incorporated in 1954 under the acronym for “South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search”. It was publicly listed on the Adelaide Stock Exchange that same year.

    Fast forward to today, there are pressing questions about whether Santos could serve Australia’s national interest if it was largely in the hands of a foreign government.

    This week, it was announced a consortium led by the investment division of state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) had made an all-cash takeover bid of almost A$29 billion for Santos. This would value the company at $36.4 billion (including its debt).

    Santos’ board has said it will support the deal if there isn’t a better offer on the table. But it will first have to clear a raft of regulatory approvals – not only in Australia but also Papua New Guinea and the United States, where Santos has operations.

    The acquisition would be a monumental event in Australia’s corporate history. Key elements of this country’s critical energy infrastructure are at stake.

    But it’s set to put a difficult decision before the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. On the FIRB’s advice, Chalmers will have to balance Australia’s stated desire to attract foreign investment with the need to protect national interests.

    Who’s trying to buy – and why?

    Also in the ADNOC-led consortium of prospective buyers are US private equity firm Carlyle and a sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi Development Holding Company (ADQ). There are a few key reasons for their interest.

    First, ADNOC is keenly interested in expanding its footprint in gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Acquiring Santos would give it a stake in much of Australia’s gas production and established LNG export facilities. This includes major operations at Gladstone and Darwin.

    They would also gain a share in two important Papua New Guinean projects: PNG LNG and the yet-to-be-developed Papua LNG. These assets are particularly attractive because they offer direct access to the growing Asian LNG markets, where future demand is projected to be strong.

    Second, the acquisition would allow ADNOC to diversify its portfolio and gain control of export capacity from Australia and PNG to the Asia Pacific region. Santos’s Gladstone LNG plant, for example, has significant export capacity. Much of Santos’ LNG capacity is under medium and long-term contracts.

    And third, the timing of this bid is strategic. Santos has recently been in a period of high capital expenditure. A number of major projects are nearing completion. A successful takeover could free up funding for further development.

    ADNOC is the state-owned oil company of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.
    Marco Curaba/Shutterstock

    Defining national interest

    For regulators assessing the move, the potential takeover touches upon many national security, energy supply, and economic concerns for Australia.

    One of the primary concerns is the potential loss of control over critical energy infrastructure.

    Foreign ownership, especially by a state-linked investor such as ADNOC, raises questions about whose interests will ultimately shape strategic decisions about Australia’s essential gas flows, pricing, or even the integrity of operational technology systems.

    There’s also concern that a foreign owner could prioritise LNG exports over domestic supply. That could potentially exacerbate domestic gas shortages and price hikes. In the eastern states of Australia, such issues are already a concern.

    This is not the first time the Australian government has faced a tough decision on a foreign takeover bid in the oil and gas sector. In 2018, the Morrison government blocked a $13 billion Chinese bid for gas pipeline operator APA Group. It said a single foreign owner should not control Australia’s largest pipeline business.

    And the then-Treasurer Peter Costello blocked Royal Dutch/Shell’s $10 billion blockbuster offer for Woodside Petroleum in 2001, also in the national interest.

    The national interest checklist

    On the other hand, Australia generally welcomes foreign investment. It brings capital, creates jobs, and supports economic growth.

    If this deal proceeds to final stages, the decision could become a “test case” for Australia. Can we still attract global capital while also diligently safeguarding our sovereign interests?

    The consortium has made commitments to maintain Santos’s headquarters in South Australia, preserve jobs and invest in growth and decarbonisation initiatives. But this is only part of the picture.

    The FIRB and the Treasurer will need to consider how the deal would affect:

    • national security and critical infrastructure, including ownership and control risk, system integrity and supply chain vulnerability
    • the economy (such as on jobs and investment, tax revenues)
    • energy security and domestic gas supply
    • other Australian government policies, such as climate targets
    • the character of the investor
    • the complexity of regulation.

    The FIRB and the Treasurer must be acutely aware that few other nations have extended the same generosity to foreign investors as Australia has over recent decades.

    This generosity, while attracting capital, has also raised concerns about the nation’s control over its vital assets.

    The SA government has already signalled it won’t stand idly by if the deal is “not in the interests of South Australians”.

    All of this sits in the context of ongoing questions about how little tax is being paid by some multinationals while exploiting Australia’s natural resources.

    It is paramount the Australian government makes a forward-looking, informed decision. This should serve Australia’s best interests, rather than those of foreign entities.

    Associate Professor Akhtar has been invited to make several submissions to national Senate inquiries on tax, trade, and investment, and some of the material from those submissions has been drawn upon in writing this article.

    – ref. Australia wants more foreign investment. That’s why a $29 billion bid for Santos puts the Treasurer in a tricky position – https://theconversation.com/australia-wants-more-foreign-investment-thats-why-a-29-billion-bid-for-santos-puts-the-treasurer-in-a-tricky-position-259153

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia wants more foreign investment. That’s why a $29 billion bid for Santos puts the Treasurer in a tricky position

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shumi Akhtar, Associate Professor, University of Sydney

    Marlon Trottmann/Shutterstock

    The Australian origins of Santos have made an indelible mark on the company’s very name. The energy giant was first incorporated in 1954 under the acronym for “South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search”. It was publicly listed on the Adelaide Stock Exchange that same year.

    Fast forward to today, there are pressing questions about whether Santos could serve Australia’s national interest if it was largely in the hands of a foreign government.

    This week, it was announced a consortium led by the investment division of state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) had made an all-cash takeover bid of almost A$29 billion for Santos. This would value the company at $36.4 billion (including its debt).

    Santos’ board has said it will support the deal if there isn’t a better offer on the table. But it will first have to clear a raft of regulatory approvals – not only in Australia but also Papua New Guinea and the United States, where Santos has operations.

    The acquisition would be a monumental event in Australia’s corporate history. Key elements of this country’s critical energy infrastructure are at stake.

    But it’s set to put a difficult decision before the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. On the FIRB’s advice, Chalmers will have to balance Australia’s stated desire to attract foreign investment with the need to protect national interests.

    Who’s trying to buy – and why?

    Also in the ADNOC-led consortium of prospective buyers are US private equity firm Carlyle and a sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi Development Holding Company (ADQ). There are a few key reasons for their interest.

    First, ADNOC is keenly interested in expanding its footprint in gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Acquiring Santos would give it a stake in much of Australia’s gas production and established LNG export facilities. This includes major operations at Gladstone and Darwin.

    They would also gain a share in two important Papua New Guinean projects: PNG LNG and the yet-to-be-developed Papua LNG. These assets are particularly attractive because they offer direct access to the growing Asian LNG markets, where future demand is projected to be strong.

    Second, the acquisition would allow ADNOC to diversify its portfolio and gain control of export capacity from Australia and PNG to the Asia Pacific region. Santos’s Gladstone LNG plant, for example, has significant export capacity. Much of Santos’ LNG capacity is under medium and long-term contracts.

    And third, the timing of this bid is strategic. Santos has recently been in a period of high capital expenditure. A number of major projects are nearing completion. A successful takeover could free up funding for further development.

    ADNOC is the state-owned oil company of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.
    Marco Curaba/Shutterstock

    Defining national interest

    For regulators assessing the move, the potential takeover touches upon many national security, energy supply, and economic concerns for Australia.

    One of the primary concerns is the potential loss of control over critical energy infrastructure.

    Foreign ownership, especially by a state-linked investor such as ADNOC, raises questions about whose interests will ultimately shape strategic decisions about Australia’s essential gas flows, pricing, or even the integrity of operational technology systems.

    There’s also concern that a foreign owner could prioritise LNG exports over domestic supply. That could potentially exacerbate domestic gas shortages and price hikes. In the eastern states of Australia, such issues are already a concern.

    This is not the first time the Australian government has faced a tough decision on a foreign takeover bid in the oil and gas sector. In 2018, the Morrison government blocked a $13 billion Chinese bid for gas pipeline operator APA Group. It said a single foreign owner should not control Australia’s largest pipeline business.

    And the then-Treasurer Peter Costello blocked Royal Dutch/Shell’s $10 billion blockbuster offer for Woodside Petroleum in 2001, also in the national interest.

    The national interest checklist

    On the other hand, Australia generally welcomes foreign investment. It brings capital, creates jobs, and supports economic growth.

    If this deal proceeds to final stages, the decision could become a “test case” for Australia. Can we still attract global capital while also diligently safeguarding our sovereign interests?

    The consortium has made commitments to maintain Santos’s headquarters in South Australia, preserve jobs and invest in growth and decarbonisation initiatives. But this is only part of the picture.

    The FIRB and the Treasurer will need to consider how the deal would affect:

    • national security and critical infrastructure, including ownership and control risk, system integrity and supply chain vulnerability
    • the economy (such as on jobs and investment, tax revenues)
    • energy security and domestic gas supply
    • other Australian government policies, such as climate targets
    • the character of the investor
    • the complexity of regulation.

    The FIRB and the Treasurer must be acutely aware that few other nations have extended the same generosity to foreign investors as Australia has over recent decades.

    This generosity, while attracting capital, has also raised concerns about the nation’s control over its vital assets.

    The SA government has already signalled it won’t stand idly by if the deal is “not in the interests of South Australians”.

    All of this sits in the context of ongoing questions about how little tax is being paid by some multinationals while exploiting Australia’s natural resources.

    It is paramount the Australian government makes a forward-looking, informed decision. This should serve Australia’s best interests, rather than those of foreign entities.

    Associate Professor Akhtar has been invited to make several submissions to national Senate inquiries on tax, trade, and investment, and some of the material from those submissions has been drawn upon in writing this article.

    – ref. Australia wants more foreign investment. That’s why a $29 billion bid for Santos puts the Treasurer in a tricky position – https://theconversation.com/australia-wants-more-foreign-investment-thats-why-a-29-billion-bid-for-santos-puts-the-treasurer-in-a-tricky-position-259153

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘I was in a semi-breaking-down sort of place’: new study sheds light on the emotional toll for emergency volunteers

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Roche, PhD Candidate, Centre for Ergonomics and Human Factors, La Trobe University

    Sergey Dolgikh/Getty Images

    In Australia, there are around 235,000 emergency service volunteers who help communities respond and recover after natural disasters and other traumatic events.

    These include volunteers with metropolitan and rural fire services and other rescue organisations.

    As natural disasters grow more frequent and severe with climate change we rely on these volunteers now more than ever. Yet volunteer numbers are shrinking.

    Our new research reveals an important but often hidden toll from natural disasters – the mental health of emergency service volunteers, who risk physical and emotional burnout.

    In our study, we interviewed 32 Victorian State Emergency Service (SES) and Country Fire Authority (CFA) volunteers. They told us they’re often not getting adequate support.

    Exposure to death

    Death is something commonly hidden behind clinical curtains. But for emergency service volunteers, exposure to dying and death is just part of the job. Death on jobs arrives unpredictably – on roads, in burned homes, after storms, floods and suicides.

    Given their work often takes place in the local community, victims are frequently known to the volunteer, which can further complicate grief. As one participant told us:

    You’re bound to come across someone you know, or someone you love at some point […] in a bad situation.

    Another recounted a colleague’s experience:

    It wasn’t until the next day that she found out that she actually knew the deceased person, but didn’t recognise them.

    Volunteers described often being first on scene to assist but not fully prepared for what they find. They recounted experiences including retrieving children who had drowned, watching people dying on the roadside, and finding burnt and maimed human remains.

    These encounters provoke intense emotional responses, from shock and sadness to feeling powerless and vulnerable. For many, feelings of helplessness and grief reverberate into everyday life. As one volunteer told us:

    I was in a semi-breaking-down sort of place […] having flashbacks […] struggling to hold emotions and do my day job.

    A lack of formal support

    We identified over-reliance on informal team support and individual resilience to cope with difficult emotions.

    Structured debriefs depended on leadership and team dynamics. Leaders with “tough it out” mindsets unintentionally perpetuated stigma around seeking help. One participant explained:

    People generally will just sit there and not talk about how they feel […] They’re feeling ashamed or embarrassed.

    The mindset of some teams seems to be that those who can’t manage the demands of the job should leave. One volunteer said:

    It’s mostly very hard and tough. But if you’re going to survive in the game, you gotta be hard.

    Support programs exist, but often focus on major disasters rather than the more everyday jobs. Referral depends on leaders flagging those seen as at-risk or individual volunteers asking for support. One participant explained:

    We do a debrief with peer support, but some people put on a brave face […] There needs to be more follow up.

    What’s more, support is sometimes difficult to access. One participant, a team leader, explained what happened when a volunteer in their team wasn’t coping:

    I called the mechanisms that [we] were told that we need to access. I’ve got somebody here that’s suicidal, nobody escalated it. I still hadn’t heard back six hours later.

    Importantly, our findings also highlighted that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work. For some, peer support is a lifeline for processing experiences and building resilience, but not for others.

    Five women killed. And the peer support was all over us. You know, we got to the stage where it was ridiculous. We’ve had enough, we don’t want this. It re-traumatises people who want to move on.

    Support for emergency service volunteers isn’t one-size-fits-all.
    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Protecting those who protect us

    Talking to emergency service volunteers from only two organisations in one jurisdiction may limit the extent to which we can generalise our findings to other regions, countries or cultures.

    However, Victoria does have the second largest number of emergency service volunteers in Australia (behind New South Wales).

    Emergency service volunteers are extremely proud and passionate about serving their community and show up with care, calm and strength. But our findings show this comes at a personal cost, especially without the right supports.

    Volunteer exposure to death and dying must be recognised as a serious occupational health and safety issue, not just an emotional side effect of the job. We need proactive, not reactive reform if we want to recruit, retain and protect the people we count on in a crisis.

    Legislators and organisations should work collaboratively with emergency service volunteers to develop and implement responsive and consistent support services, culture and leadership.

    Without targeted, systemic and consistent support, we risk the future of our community-based emergency response. It’s time to protect those who protect us.

    If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.

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

    – ref. ‘I was in a semi-breaking-down sort of place’: new study sheds light on the emotional toll for emergency volunteers – https://theconversation.com/i-was-in-a-semi-breaking-down-sort-of-place-new-study-sheds-light-on-the-emotional-toll-for-emergency-volunteers-259145

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Britain’s support for AUKUS is unwavering – but its capacity to deliver is another matter

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Howe, PhD candidate in International Relations, Monash University

    A recently announced Pentagon review of the AUKUS pact has sparked a renewed bout of debate in Australia. Led by the “AUKUS-agnostic” US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, the review raises serious questions over whether Australia will receive its US-made Virginia-class submarines on schedule from 2032.

    AUKUS supporters suggest the review is not overly concerning – they point out governments typically review major programs after taking office. As they note, the UK Labour government did the same when it commissioned Sir Stephen Lovegrove to review AUKUS in 2024. Moreover, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee is currently reviewing AUKUS.

    Crucially, however, not all reviews are created equal. Given the US assessment is, according to US officials, being conducted to ensure alignment with the imperatives of “America first”, there is a risk the US will not supply Australia with the Virgina-class submarines it feels it requires to deter China. The UK reviews, on the other hand, did not and do not carry such risks.

    The findings of the Lovegrove review remain confidential, but have been shared with Canberra and were incorporated into the UK government’s recent Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The Defence Select Committee is yet to report, but being public, its findings are likely to generate further debate in Australia.

    Why are the UK reviews different?

    The Defence Select Committee review, launched independently of the government, is an accountability mechanism that scrutinises progress but lacks the power to set policy.

    Meanwhile, the Lovegrove review was never intended to question AUKUS, as its terms of reference made clear. Instead, its focus was more on what progress has been made so far and any barriers that might inhibit future success.

    There was never any real chance the Lovegrove review would end or amend the UK’s participation in AUKUS, because it has widespread support across mainstream British politics. In foreign and security policy terms, cross-party consensus is the norm in the UK.

    However, in the case of AUKUS, two specific factors stand out.

    First, AUKUS provides a welcome means to share the burden on a project the UK was already pursuing. Even before AUKUS was announced, the UK had initiated plans for its next generation of nuclear-powered attack submarines, awarding initial design contracts to BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce worth £85 million (A$170 million).

    Considering this, AUKUS – and specifically Australia’s £2.4 billion (A$4.6 billion) investment into Rolls-Royce’s reactor production line – was a welcome boon for the cash-strapped British government.

    Second, AUKUS has been a crucial component of the UK’s post-Brexit re-emergence. Coming after a period in which Brexit negotiations consumed the British government, it provided important substance to “Global Britain” and its Indo-Pacific tilt.

    AUKUS’s cross-party appeal might initially seem strange, given its close association with Boris Johnson’s Brexiteer government. After all, with its “Britain Reconnected” plan, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has been keen to demonstrate how it differs from its Conservative predecessors. This most recent example comes with the SDR’s NATO-first approach, which some interpreted as a sharp break.

    However, this is a difference in style rather than substance. Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government had announced Britain had delivered the tilt and would focus on consolidating its position.

    In other words, it was making no new commitments. The SDR does not amend this position. It makes clear that “NATO first does not mean NATO only”. This means continuing support for agreements such as AUKUS, which, according to the review, are crucial to shaping the global security environment.

    Whether Britain has the capability to shape the global security environment is a question the SDR addresses, if implicitly, by acknowledging the “hollowing out” of the UK’s armed forces. Reconstituting Britain’s armed forces is consequently a key focus of Starmer’s government, which sees rearmament as a route to reindustrialisation.

    Militarisation as central to ‘rebirth’

    In this rebirth, the government is focusing heavily on the arms industry as a means to bring well-paid, high-skilled jobs to post-industrial parts of the country. There is debate about whether this is the best way to create jobs and growth, but the Starmer government has gone all-in on the strategy.

    Indeed, one of the most notable outcomes of the SDR is that the UK plans to invest substantial sums in its fleet of attack submarines, as it plans to go from seven Astute-class boats to 12 AUKUS-class ones.

    This ambition may provide some comfort to Australian observers as it indicates the scale of the UK’s commitment to AUKUS. Still, achieving the goal will require a significant increase in industrial capacity, as Britain will need to produce a new submarine every 18 months. The record of the UK government on major capital projects suggests this is a heroic ambition.

    For example, the last three Astute-class boats to be commissioned took between 130 and 132 months to build. The sixth and seventh boats of the nearly 25-year-old program are yet to enter service. Moreover, even the active Astute boats are beset by problems; in the first half of 2024, none of the five in-service boats completed an operational deployment due to maintenance issues.

    So, while in the context of the US review, Britain’s commitment is likely welcomed, any comfort must be tempered by the expectation that problems will also likely emanate from Britain.

    Tom Howe is a Young Professionals Member of the AIIA.

    – ref. Britain’s support for AUKUS is unwavering – but its capacity to deliver is another matter – https://theconversation.com/britains-support-for-aukus-is-unwavering-but-its-capacity-to-deliver-is-another-matter-259266

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: West Australian miners flexed their muscle to block a federal EPA last year. Will it be different this time?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Dowdell, PhD Candidate in Sustainable Mining, The University of Queensland

    CUHRIG/Getty

    This week, Environment Minister Murray Watt met with groups representing business, the environment, renewable energy and First Nations communities in a bid to restart Labor’s stalled environmental reforms. There was one group in the room Watt presumably had to woo hardest: Western Australia’s miners.

    Last year, the WA mining lobby mounted an ultimately successful campaign opposing proposed changes to national environment laws, and the plan to set up an environmental protection authority. State premier Roger Cook also lobbied Prime Minister Anthony Albanese directly.

    Watt has pledged to revive the reform process and on Thursday claimed a compromise could be reached. The existing laws, he said, are “not working for the environment, and they are not working for business”.

    Whether his efforts will be enough to overcome the scepticism of the mining industry remains to be seen. These companies have influence – and they will use it if they see new laws as a threat.

    The mining state

    The mining industry dominates WA economically, politically and socially. WA’s mining sector is substantially larger than the mining interests in any other Australian state. Underground lie huge reserves of iron ore, gas, gold, lithium and many other resources.

    The sector funnelled A$267 billion into the Australian economy in 2023–24 through salaries, royalties and taxes. About $60 billion directly flowed to Western Australians in wages and salaries.

    The leaders of WA mining companies see themselves, by and large, as doing economically vital work.

    I have interviewed many WA mining executives for my doctorate, which is currently underway. One clear common narrative emerged: they saw mining as a national good. They believed their companies brought wealth and prosperity to communities, built infrastructure, and funnelled money into state and federal treasuries.

    The justification is powerful. It underpins the way those in the industry see their work – and how they respond to any threat, perceived or otherwise.

    It also dates back over a century. The link between WA resources and prosperity originates from the 1890s WA gold rush, which transformed the fortunes of the state. This self image has been nurtured through successive resource booms, from gold to iron ore to natural gas and more gold.

    Many company executives see any duplication of environmental approvals as time-consuming, unproductive and economically damaging. A 2023 WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry report suggested “green tape” (approval delays) was threatening 40% of mining proposals in the pipeline.

    Miners and their political backers often frame the industry as environmentally positive, particularly for resources vital to the green energy transition such as lithium, rare earth elements and – more controversially – gas.

    Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King – who is West Australian – regularly draws this link. As she said in 2023:

    let me be clear, the global clean energy transition will need more mining, not less […] the road to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector.

    Mining is vital to Western Australia.
    Inc/Shutterstock

    Wielding influence

    WA miners are represented by well-organised and well-resourced lobbying bodies such as the Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, and the Minerals Council of Australia.

    These groups maintain relationships with politicians at both state and federal levels, regardless of which party is in power.

    Broadly, their goals are to promote the continued expansion of resource projects (minerals, oil and gas) under conditions most advantageous to industry interests.

    Mining companies use these industry lobby groups to support or critique government policy and push for changes. They exert influence through targeted lobbying, close relationships with elected officials and political candidates, and direct engagement with federal processes.

    What happens when the sector sees a potential threat from policymakers in Canberra? Often, the mining companies unify against it.

    For example, WA miners were prominent in the 2010 campaign against efforts by the Rudd government to introduce a super profits tax on mining.

    Why WA miners oppose nature law reform

    A tax is one thing. But what did the WA miners see as the key problems in the environmental reforms?

    One issue was a perceived contradiction between the federal government’s intention to streamline developmental approvals and introduce a federal Environmental Protection Agency, while failing to deal with existing duplication between state and federal processes.

    The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies lobby group gave another reason in a submission to government: the proposed independence of the EPA would remove the discretionary power of the minister.

    Rather than an independent federal EPA, they pushed for a model similar to the WA version – the advice of which the minister can overrule. The group also warned the laws would impede the global competitiveness of the mining industry and hinder investment.

    The state government echoed these statements, calling the reforms an overreach that would stifle economic development.

    This alignment of government and industry messaging shows how closely their interests are intertwined.

    Premier Roger Cook leaves no ambiguity about this. Ahead of this year’s WA and federal elections, Cook warned the “latte sippers” over east:

    do not for a moment think that we will stand by idly and allow you to damage our economy because, ultimately, it will damage your standard of living.

    Is a deal possible?

    Across Australia, there is broad support for environmental law reform, because the current national laws are seen as not fit for purpose.

    Murray Watt came to the role of environment minister with a reputation as a fixer. The question now is, what will he trade to get the miners on side?

    The industry will be cautious and will insist on much more detail about any changes. It’s possible a deal could be struck. But we can expect to continue to see very strong pushback if Watt tries to expand federal powers into what is seen as state responsibilities.

    The industry will also expect greater federal resourcing for delivery of timely approvals. Nationally important industries don’t like to wait.

    Diane Dowdell is a PhD Candidate in the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) within the Sustainable Minerals Institute at the University of Queensland. She was the recipient of an industry scholarship from Newcrest Mining for her PhD research. She works for SLR Consulting Pty Ltd. Diane is a fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ).

    – ref. West Australian miners flexed their muscle to block a federal EPA last year. Will it be different this time? – https://theconversation.com/west-australian-miners-flexed-their-muscle-to-block-a-federal-epa-last-year-will-it-be-different-this-time-257892

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective’, trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

    MAYA LAB/Shutterstock

    Technologies to enforce the Australian government’s social media ban for under 16s are “private, robust and effective”. That’s according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that has nearly finished testing them.

    The findings, released today, may give the government greater confidence to forge ahead with the ban, despite a suite of expert criticism. They might also alleviate some of the concerns of the Australian population about privacy and security implications of the ban, which is due to begin in December.

    For example, a report based on a survey of nearly 4,000 people and released by the government earlier this week found nine out of ten people support the idea of a ban. But it also found a large number of people were “very concerned” about how the ban would be implemented. Nearly 80% of respondents had privacy and security concerns, while roughly half had concerns about age assurance accuracy and government oversight.

    The trial’s preliminary findings paint a rosy picture of the potential for available technologies to check people’s ages. However, they contain very little detail about specific technologies, and appear to be at odds with what we know about age-assurance technology from other sources.

    From facial recognition to hand movement recognition

    The social media ban for under 16s was legislated in December 2024. A last-minute amendment to the law requires technology companies to provide “alternative age assurance methods” for account holders to confirm their age, rather than relying only on government-issued ID.

    The Australian government commissioned an independent trial to evaluate the “effectiveness, maturity, and readiness for use” of these alternative methods.

    The trial is being led by the Age Check Certification Scheme – a company based in the United Kingdom that specialises in testing and certifying identity verification systems. It includes 53 vendors that offer a range of age assurance technologies to guess people’s ages, using techniques such as facial recognition and hand-movement recognition.

    According to the preliminary findings of the trial, “age assurance can be done in Australia”.

    The trial’s project director, Tony Allen, said “there are no significant technological barriers” to assuring people’s ages online. He added the solutions are “technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services and can support the safety and rights of children online”.

    However, these claims are hard to square with other evidence.

    High error rates

    Yesterday the ABC reported the trial found face-scanning technologies “repeatedly misidentified” children as young as 15 as being in their 20s and 30s. These tools could only guess children’s ages “within an 18-month range in 85 percent of cases”. This means a 14-year-old child might gain access to a social media account, while a 17-year-old might be blocked.

    This is in line with results of global trials of face-scanning technologies conducted for more than a decade.

    An ongoing series of studies of age estimation technology by the United States’ National Institute of Standards and Technology shows the algorithms “fail significantly when attempting to differentiate minors” of various ages.

    The tests also show that error rates are higher for young women compared to young men. Error rates are also higher for people with darker skin tones.

    These studies show that even the best age-estimation software currently available – Yoti – has an average error of 1.0 years. Other software options mistake someone’s age by 3.1 years on average.

    This means, at best, a 16-year-old might be estimated to be 15 or 17 years old; at worst, they could be seen to be 13 or 19 years of age. These error rates mean a significant number of children under 16 could access social media accounts despite a ban being in place, while some over 16 could be blocked.

    Yoti also explains businesses needing to check exact ages (such as 18) can set higher age thresholds (such as 25), so fewer people under 18 get through the age check.

    This approach would be similar to that taken in Australia’s retail liquor sector, where sales staff verify ID for anyone who appears to be under the age of 25. However, many young people lack the government-issued ID required for an additional age check.

    It’s also worth remembering that in August 2023, the Australian government acknowledged that the age assurance technology market was “immature” and could not yet meet key requirements, such as working reliably without circumvention and balancing privacy and security.

    Outstanding questions

    We don’t yet know exactly what methods platforms will use to verify account holders’ ages. While face-scanning technologies are often discussed, they could use other methods to confirm age. The government trial also tested voice and hand movements to guess young people’s ages. But those methods also have accuracy issues.

    And it’s not yet clear what recourse people will have if their age is misidentified. Will parents be able to complain if children under 16 gain access to accounts, despite restrictions? Will older Australians who are incorrectly blocked be able to appeal? And if so, to whom?

    There are other outstanding questions. What’s stopping someone who’s under 16 from getting someone who is over 16 to set up an account on their behalf? To mitigate this risk, the government might require all social media users to verify their age at regular intervals.

    It’s also unclear what level of age estimation error the government may be willing to accept in implementing a social media ban. The legislation says technology companies must demonstrate they have taken “reasonable steps” to prevent under 16s from holding social media accounts. What is considered “reasonable” is yet to be clearly defined.

    Australians will have to wait until later this year for the full results of the government’s trial to be released, and to know how technology companies will respond. With less than six months until the ban comes into effect, social media users still don’t have all the answers they need.

    Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the international Association for Information Science and Technology.

    – ref. Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective’, trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence – https://theconversation.com/technology-to-enforce-teen-social-media-ban-is-effective-trial-says-but-this-is-at-odds-with-other-evidence-259373

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: 6 things Australia must do if it’s serious about tackling school bullying

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Miller, Lecturer in Education (Classroom Management), Southern Cross University

    Wander Women/ Getty Images

    Bullying is arguably one of the most serious issues facing Australia’s schools.

    About one in four students between Year 4 and Year 9 report being bullied regularly. This can have serious and lasting consequences. Research suggests students who are bullied are at an increased risk of mental health problems and self-harm.

    On Friday, submissions close for the federal government’s rapid review into school bullying. Here, we suggest six key areas on which governments, schools and education authorities need to focus to re-imagine Australia’s approach to tackling bullying.



    Read more:
    With a government review underway, we have to ask why children bully other kids

    1. A national approach to bullying

    At the moment, there is no clear, consistent definition of bullying in Australian schools. Nor are there consistent policies.

    This naturally leads to confusion about current best practice to both prevent bullying and support students who have been bullied.

    For example, there are several definitions of cyberbullying between the different states and territories.

    2. Consistent data to track bullying

    Australia also has no nationally consistent approach to track or measure bullying and cyberbullying.

    This means it is impossible to say whether bullying is getting worse or better – or if certain parts of the country are more successfully addressing it.

    So we need metrics to better track, analyse, report and respond to bullying incidents across schools, regions, states and territories.

    For years, researchers have noted schools themselves also need accurate data to analyse, monitor and evaluate the degree to which an intervention is effective.

    3. A whole-school approach

    A national strategy should also prioritise whole-school approaches to bullying prevention – this is what research shows to be most effective.

    A whole-school approach sees anti-bullying efforts as the responsibility of everyone connected to a school. School leaders, teachers, support staff, students, families and the wider community are all expected to promote safety and inclusion.

    Addressing bullying should see strategies implemented across multiple locations, including the classroom, wider school and home environments.

    This goes beyond simply dealing with individual bullying incidents as they arise.

    Research also suggests schools should focus on proactive, non-punitive strategies and a positive school culture. This includes clear procedures to report bullying, effective education programs, and establishing consistent classroom and school rules.

    If bullying occurs, schools can respond with a restorative approach, which focuses on repairing harm done to relationships.

    Studies suggest whole-school approaches such as these can reduce bullying behaviours by 20-23% and victimisation by 17-20%.

    4. Teach social and emotional skills

    As part of the whole-school approach, we also need to make sure schools are teaching social and emotional skills. This includes how to identify and manage emotions as well as communicating and cooperating with others.

    While it is part of the Australian Curriculum, research shows social and emotional skills are not always taught using evidence-based, formal approaches.

    A large body of research demonstrates that schools which teach social and emotional learning across all aspects of school engagement, report higher academic achievement, lower rates of bullying, improved student wellbeing, and stronger connections between students and adults.

    In part, this is because these approaches empower students to take ownership of their behaviour.



    Read more:
    Schools today also teach social and emotional skills. Why is this important? And what’s involved?

    5. Training for teachers

    Teachers play a pivotal role in making sure all students feel safe and supported at school, helping children and young people to understand and manage their emotions.

    A 2014 study found teachers who had participated in anti-bullying training were able to provide this support more effectively.

    Teachers specifically need training that helps them provide safe, inclusive spaces for students from marginalised groups, including students with disability and young people who face homophobic or transphobic bullying.

    School staff should receive consistent, culturally responsive training, so they are equipped with the most current and effective ways to support all students.

    6. Give students an active role

    We should also look at ways to give students a greater role in shaping anti-bullying policies.

    Research shows when students are included in decisions that affect them, it increases their engagement with learning and motivation at school.

    Along with helping to make policies, students can also be involved in peer-mentoring programs and leading campaigns to raise awareness about respectful relationships. This can create a sense of shared ownership for anti-bullying interventions.

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

    – ref. 6 things Australia must do if it’s serious about tackling school bullying – https://theconversation.com/6-things-australia-must-do-if-its-serious-about-tackling-school-bullying-258924

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University

    Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal.

    The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It’s expected to start operating in 2026.

    Human rights organisations, international lawyers and some (mostly European) states have long been calling for the establishment of such a tribunal. Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer, called the establishment of the tribunal:

    an important breakthrough for the international justice community and especially for the millions of Ukrainians who have been harmed by the Russian aggression.

    However, important questions remain about if it could truly hold senior Russian officials accountable.

    So, how will this new special tribunal work, and will it be effective – or necessary?

    How does the special tribunal fill the gaps left by the ICC and ICJ?

    This tribunal is separate to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

    The ICC can prosecute individuals charged with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Russian war on Ukraine. So far, it has issued arrest warrants against four Russian senior officials, including President Vladimir Putin.

    Because Russia is not a member state to the court, the court can’t exercise legal authority over what’s known in international law as a crime of aggression (when leaders of a state launch or plan a war). For the ICC to be able to exercise this jurisdiction, the aggressor state also must be a member state of the court.

    The ICJ is a different court altogether. It primarily deals with and adjudicates disputes between states, not limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It can’t hold individuals accountable, and can only exercise jurisdiction over a dispute if both states to a dispute agree.

    While the ICC seeks to establish individual criminal responsibility, the ICJ may establish state responsibility for a violation of international law.

    Currently, there are also two cases between Ukraine and Russia before the ICJ.

    Neither deals with the question of the legality of Russia’s use of force in its invasion in February 2022. Both Ukraine and Russia would need to consent to bring this issue before the court.

    So, is a new tribunal necessary?

    Yes, because the crime of aggression currently can’t be addressed by any other international court or tribunal.

    Given the limitations of what the ICJ and ICC can do, a dedicated tribunal seems the obvious solution to hold those responsible for the illegal use of force against Ukraine accountable.

    And it’s not uncommon for specialised tribunals with limited jurisdiction over a specific situation to be created.

    Other historical examples include the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

    Given the ICC’s lack of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, the new special tribunal would complement the court’s existing investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    Who is running the new tribunal and how will it work?

    The exact content and specifics of this new tribunal will remain unknown until the draft statute of the tribunal is published. That’s a document that outlines details including the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the applicable definition of aggression and how the tribunal will function.

    At this stage, the Council of Europe has confirmed the tribunal will work within its legal framework and principles. It will be funded by an international coalition of supportive states.

    A management committee of members and associate members of the tribunal will be responsible for the election of the tribunal’s judges and prosecutors. The management committee is made up of the Council of Europe’s council of ministers and Ukraine.

    Diplomatic discussions are still ongoing at this point, but the legal process for establishing the special tribunal can begin now.

    Will this special tribunal be more effective?

    Political, legal and practical challenges for the special tribunal remain. It’s unclear if the most senior Russian state officials can and will be able to be brought to trial for the crime of aggression.

    Nothing, so far, suggests the statute of the tribunal will contain an exception to state immunity enjoyed by heads of state, heads of governments and foreign ministers while in power.

    That means these office holders can only be prosecuted if they are no longer in power or the Russian government expressly waives their immunity.

    It’s also unclear whether states will be willing to arrest those sought by the special tribunal.

    The ICC has long faced this challenge trying to get states to act on its arrest warrants.

    Hungary, for instance, did not arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visited in April, despite an ICC arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza.

    For the special tribunal to be effective, according to Oleksandra Matviichuk, it:

    must not become a remote and hollow entity that does not engage with the Ukrainian victims.

    Overall, much remains unclear. Will this new special tribunal be able to hold the likes of Putin accountable for the crime of aggression? Or will it become another empty promise?

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

    – ref. A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective? – https://theconversation.com/a-new-special-tribunal-will-investigate-russias-aggression-against-ukraine-will-it-be-effective-257823

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Many elite athletes live below the poverty line. Tax-deductible donations won’t solve the problem

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University

    Australia’s Jaclyn Narracott competes in the women’s skeleton at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images

    As the end of the 2024-25 financial year nears, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), in partnership with the Australian Sports Foundation (ASF), has launched a new joint fundraising initiative allowing Australians to make tax-deductible donations directly to Australia’s Olympians and Paralympians.

    The ASF is an “Item 1” Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) and is the only organisation in Australia that allows a donor to claim a tax deduction for philanthropic donations to sport.

    This is because sport is not currently eligible for either DGR or charitable status under Australian law.

    But is this new joint fundraising initiative a gold medal idea for our athletes, or one that falls short of a podium finish?

    Aussies tax payers and Olympic dreams

    The new initiative, named the “Aspiring Australian Olympian Funding program”, means individual donations of A$2 or more made through the ASF are tax-deductible.

    Australians can direct funds to a specific athlete, coach or official selected to participate in representative, elite or high performance sport in the Olympic/Paralympic program (summer and winter).

    Depending on the donor’s marginal tax rate, the effective cost of a donation may be reduced up to 62% for the highest earners (over $250,000).

    For instance, a $1,000 donation could yield a tax refund of up to $470, bringing the net cost down to just $530.

    Companies paying the full company tax rate that donate $1,000 would reduce their tax by $300 (30%).

    Ahead of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, more than 30 Australian athletes (from disciplines such as alpine skiing, bobsleigh and figure skating) have signed up to use the platform.

    However, many Australian athletes are struggling financially, so more financial support is needed.

    The brutal reality for many athletes

    The ASF’s 2023 “Running on Empty” report found many of Australia’s elite athletes were under significant financial pressure: 46% of those over the age of 18 were earning less than $23,000 per year. This places them below the poverty line at $489 a week.

    The report also found 67% of elite athletes said their financial struggles affected their parents and support networks. Also, 42% of elite athletes aged 18-34 reported they were suffering poor mental health as a result of their financial predicament.

    The report also found the costs of training, equipment, travel and accommodation continued to rise, resulting in many questioning the sustainability of elite sport funding models both here and abroad.

    Pros and cons

    The new funding program’s use of tax incentives as a funding carrot is good in principle, but there are potential unintended consequences.

    This includes athletes being pitted against one another: there is a danger the athletes best skilled in marketing and public relations will receive more funding.

    The current economic climate doesn’t bode well for the program. Many Australians are facing cost-of-living pressures, which means a lot of people may not be able to donate even if they want to.

    Also, what happens if an athlete who benefits from the program is injured or found to be a drug cheat, and can’t compete? Can a donor request a refund?

    Finally, taxpayers who have the most capacity to donate are likely high income earners, some of whom may donate to sport entities already. Now, their donations will be subsidised by the tax system.

    Some alternative ideas

    In the United Kingdom, National Lottery revenue plays a significant role in funding Olympic and Paralympic sports. Administered by UK Sport (the UK’s equivalent of the ASC) funds from the lottery are directed to high performance sports programs and athletes.

    This approach could be replicated in Australia.

    Another idea is to redirect a portion of government taxes collected from sports betting, which could be lucrative given Australia’s love of sports gambling.



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

    The federal government could offer a further incentive by matching peoples’ donations dollar for dollar.

    As we direct funds to athletes, we need also think about the potential tax impact for them. Will the funds they receive be considered income and be taxed? The government could consider making the payment to the athlete tax free.

    If we are going to succeed on the world stage, especially as the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games approach, we need to financially support our athletes so they can focus on representing their country.

    Michelle O’Shea receives funding from the Olympic Studies Centre.

    Connie Vitale receives funding from the federal government as part of the National Tax Clinic Program. She is affiliated with the Institute of Public Accountants and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.

    Robert B Whait receives funding from the federal government as part of the National Tax Clinic Program, Financial Literacy Australia (now Ecstra Foundation), ANZ Bank, and the Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC). He is affiliated with the Tax Institute of Australia and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.

    – ref. Many elite athletes live below the poverty line. Tax-deductible donations won’t solve the problem – https://theconversation.com/many-elite-athletes-live-below-the-poverty-line-tax-deductible-donations-wont-solve-the-problem-258914

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Will Jeffery, Sessional Academic, Discipline of Film Studies, University of Sydney

    Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images

    When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever.

    Unlike the generations of filmgoers who were afraid of sharks and going into the water during its initial release in 1975, I fell in love with the water and sharks.

    Steven Spielberg’s film was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.

    It was only the third film for the 28-year-old Steven Spielberg, and his second theatrical release (his first film, Duel, was made for TV), and success arrived only after much trouble.

    Jaws was only the second feature film for Spielberg, pictured here on set.
    Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Image

    A marketed behemoth

    Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife, Ellen (Lorriane Gary), and their two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.

    Mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) insist on joining the expedition to save the island.

    The film was advertised as a suspense and horror monster movie. In what director Spielberg described as a marketing “blitzkrieg” campaign, Jaws, was released in the summer – peak swimming season.

    Universal Pictures made sure every household knew about the film. There were multiple TV spots, a cover on Time Magazine, talk show appearances from cast and crew, and a wave of merchandise. It was the most money the company had ever spent on a film’s pre-release marketing.

    The first American film released in more than 400 theatres at once, Jaws found its audience with overwhelmingly positive reviews and word of mouth – because Jaws was also extremely well made.

    Wrangling the shark

    Peter Benchley was hired to adapt his novel, but another screenwriter, Carl Gottlieb, was brought in to redraft Benchley’s more serious narrative and provide comic relief.

    Jaws was initially planned for 55 days of shooting, but ballooned to 159 days and $8 million over budget. The main reason: the shark.

    Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. There were three sharks made for the film, all nicknamed “Bruce” after Spielberg’s lawyer.

    Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts depicted the fictional Amity Island, and much of the second half was shot in water.

    Much of the second half of the film was shot on the water.
    Photo by Universal Studios/Courtesy of Getty Images

    The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.

    With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half.

    Spielberg even quotes Hitchcock’s Vertigo shot (a dolly zoom) in the scene when Brody realises a shark attack is unfolding under his watch.

    Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music: most of the film’s cues are associated with the shark.

    Tension onscreen

    One of my favourite moments in the film is in the aftermath of an attack on the young Alex Kintner (and poor dog Pippet!). Brody is slapped in the face by the mother of the slain Alex – but this is followed by a cute and wholesome encounter between Chief Brody and his son Sean.

    As a father, Brody’s failure to prevent the attack on Alex reflects his loss of authority to capitalism. The water is the island’s summer revenue, and the hungry shark swims in it.

    The film could have seen an early shark attack and immediately launched a shark hunt. However, the shark doesn’t appear much at all for a monster movie due to its malfunctioning. This worked in the film’s favour.

    Instead, the film relied on good writing and strong performances to heighten the tension and build anticipation for the rare moments the shark has onscreen.

    A lot of the film’s success comes from the dynamic and well-written trio of Brody, Hooper and Quint. In the final act set at sea with just the three leads on a boat surrounded by the shark, they needed to deliver – and they did, arguably stealing the movie from the shark.

    Possibly the most famous scene in the entire film comes when the shark is fully revealed for the first time. Startled by its size, Brody backs into the cabin and delivers an improvised line: “you’re gonna need a bigger boat”.

    Dreyfuss and Shaw famously didn’t get along in real life. You can see that tension play out onscreen. It arguably enhances their performances.

    Still, one of the most iconic moments comes when Dreyfuss’s Hooper is left speechless by Quint’s USS Indianapolis monologue, describing being in the water with sharks after the warship was torpedoed.

    The monologue was scripted, but Shaw improvised much of it.

    A cinema classic

    Jaws is now a cinema classic.

    It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.

    I hope you’ll join me in revisiting Amity Island one more time to watch this timeless film that, apart from its mechanical shark, completely works.

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

    – ref. Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work – https://theconversation.com/jaws-at-50-the-first-summer-blockbuster-is-still-a-film-that-bites-even-when-the-shark-didnt-work-246247

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Will Jeffery, Sessional Academic, Discipline of Film Studies, University of Sydney

    Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images

    When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever.

    Unlike the generations of filmgoers who were afraid of sharks and going into the water during its initial release in 1975, I fell in love with the water and sharks.

    Steven Spielberg’s film was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.

    It was only the third film for the 28-year-old Steven Spielberg, and his second theatrical release (his first film, Duel, was made for TV), and success arrived only after much trouble.

    Jaws was only the second feature film for Spielberg, pictured here on set.
    Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Image

    A marketed behemoth

    Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife, Ellen (Lorriane Gary), and their two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.

    Mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) insist on joining the expedition to save the island.

    The film was advertised as a suspense and horror monster movie. In what director Spielberg described as a marketing “blitzkrieg” campaign, Jaws, was released in the summer – peak swimming season.

    Universal Pictures made sure every household knew about the film. There were multiple TV spots, a cover on Time Magazine, talk show appearances from cast and crew, and a wave of merchandise. It was the most money the company had ever spent on a film’s pre-release marketing.

    The first American film released in more than 400 theatres at once, Jaws found its audience with overwhelmingly positive reviews and word of mouth – because Jaws was also extremely well made.

    Wrangling the shark

    Peter Benchley was hired to adapt his novel, but another screenwriter, Carl Gottlieb, was brought in to redraft Benchley’s more serious narrative and provide comic relief.

    Jaws was initially planned for 55 days of shooting, but ballooned to 159 days and $8 million over budget. The main reason: the shark.

    Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. There were three sharks made for the film, all nicknamed “Bruce” after Spielberg’s lawyer.

    Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts depicted the fictional Amity Island, and much of the second half was shot in water.

    Much of the second half of the film was shot on the water.
    Photo by Universal Studios/Courtesy of Getty Images

    The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.

    With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half.

    Spielberg even quotes Hitchcock’s Vertigo shot (a dolly zoom) in the scene when Brody realises a shark attack is unfolding under his watch.

    Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music: most of the film’s cues are associated with the shark.

    Tension onscreen

    One of my favourite moments in the film is in the aftermath of an attack on the young Alex Kintner (and poor dog Pippet!). Brody is slapped in the face by the mother of the slain Alex – but this is followed by a cute and wholesome encounter between Chief Brody and his son Sean.

    As a father, Brody’s failure to prevent the attack on Alex reflects his loss of authority to capitalism. The water is the island’s summer revenue, and the hungry shark swims in it.

    The film could have seen an early shark attack and immediately launched a shark hunt. However, the shark doesn’t appear much at all for a monster movie due to its malfunctioning. This worked in the film’s favour.

    Instead, the film relied on good writing and strong performances to heighten the tension and build anticipation for the rare moments the shark has onscreen.

    A lot of the film’s success comes from the dynamic and well-written trio of Brody, Hooper and Quint. In the final act set at sea with just the three leads on a boat surrounded by the shark, they needed to deliver – and they did, arguably stealing the movie from the shark.

    Possibly the most famous scene in the entire film comes when the shark is fully revealed for the first time. Startled by its size, Brody backs into the cabin and delivers an improvised line: “you’re gonna need a bigger boat”.

    Dreyfuss and Shaw famously didn’t get along in real life. You can see that tension play out onscreen. It arguably enhances their performances.

    Still, one of the most iconic moments comes when Dreyfuss’s Hooper is left speechless by Quint’s USS Indianapolis monologue, describing being in the water with sharks after the warship was torpedoed.

    The monologue was scripted, but Shaw improvised much of it.

    A cinema classic

    Jaws is now a cinema classic.

    It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.

    I hope you’ll join me in revisiting Amity Island one more time to watch this timeless film that, apart from its mechanical shark, completely works.

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

    – ref. Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work – https://theconversation.com/jaws-at-50-the-first-summer-blockbuster-is-still-a-film-that-bites-even-when-the-shark-didnt-work-246247

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Is there any hope for a fairer carve-up of the GST between the states?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania

    When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized boost to its coffers from the federal government.

    In 2018, the Morrison government – with the full support of the then Labor opposition – handed WA a special deal for the distribution of income from the goods and service tax (GST).

    Under the deal, WA gets a much greater share of the centrally collected GST revenue than it would have been entitled to under the methods previously used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

    So what can be done to ensure a return to a fairer distribution of the GST revenue?

    How the GST carve-up is supposed to work

    The 2018 deal upended a principle known as “horizontal fiscal equalisation”. This principle seeks to ensure each state and territory has the fiscal capacity to provide its residents with a broadly similar range and quality of public services, while levying a similar level of state taxes. This applies to states with different populations and needs.

    That principle is the main reason why the quality of health care, schooling and policing in your community depends much less on which state you happen to live in, compared with other countries with a federal system. Just think of the United States.

    But that principle was jettisoned in the pursuit, by both major parties, of seats from WA in the House of Representatives, which in effect determined the outcome of the 2016, 2019 and 2022 elections.

    WA gets a much greater share of GST revenue than under methods once used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

    Holding onto the mineral wealth

    During the mining boom starting in 2000, WA became rich. While it previously received extra grants from other states, it was now having to share income from mining royalties with other states.

    But the 2018 amendment changed how the GST revenue is distributed. Instead of equalising all states to have the fiscal strength of the strongest state (such as WA during the boom), funds were now equalised to the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria. States are also guaranteed a minimum per capita share of revenue.

    The only state that benefits from these changes is Australia’s richest state: WA. Since 2018-19 it has received A$24.2 billion more than it would have done had the 2018 changes not been made.

    Combined with the $58.3 billion it has collected in mineral royalties over the past seven years, that has enabled WA to rack up cash surpluses totalling more than $18 billion. Every other state and territory recorded cash deficits over that time.

    Over the next four years, WA will receive $26.3 billion more from the carve-up of GST revenues than it would otherwise have done.

    No one worse off?

    To cajole the other states and territories into accepting this “deal”, the Morrison government agreed to “top up” the revenue from the GST to ensure none would be any worse off than if the long-standing system had remained in place.

    It estimated this “No Worse Off guarantee” (or NoWO as it is now called) would cost the federal budget $8 billion over the nine years to 2026-27, when NoWO would expire.

    To avoid expected pushback from the other states, the Albanese government agreed in 2023 to extend NoWO by another three years. It is now expected it will have cost the federal budget almost $60 billion by its scheduled expiry in 2029-30.

    This is the biggest blow-out in the cost of any single policy decision, with the exception of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This $52 billion blowout from the GST carve-up represents a massive drain on the federal budget, at a time when it is forecast to be in deficit for the next ten years, to appease the greed of Australia’s richest, and luckiest, state.

    A government that truly believed in equity, and was committed to prudent and responsible budget outcomes, would scrap this appalling piece of public policy. And an Opposition that was sincere in its claims to stand for fiscal responsibility would support any move by the government to do so.

    The system is not working as intended

    The 2018 legislation requires the Productivity Commission to report, by the end of 2026, on whether the new system is working “efficiently, effectively and as intended”. Since it clearly wasn’t intended for the changes to cost anywhere near as much as they have done, the answer to that question must surely be a resounding “no”.

    But rather than giving it such a narrow remit, the Treasurer could, and should, task the Productivity Commission with devising a way of achieving the long-standing objective of “horizontal fiscal equalisation” in a simpler, more transparent and more predictable way.

    This should be possible by reference to fewer than a dozen readily available economic, demographic and social indicators. These could replace the “black box” processes currently used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission to allocate GST. WA has been able to exploit this lack of transparency in pursuit of its claims on an unjustified share of GST revenue.

    Steven Kennedy, in his new role as head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, is reportedly open to considering controversial tax changes, including the GST carve-up. Hopefully he will be making this suggestion to the Prime Minister.

    An inquiry by the Productivity Commission along these lines would enable the government to step away from the 2018 changes in the 2027-28 budget. That would, in turn, represent a substantial contribution towards the task of budget repair. And it would reinstate a principle that has helped make Australia a fairer, and better, country than it would otherwise have been.

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

    – ref. Is there any hope for a fairer carve-up of the GST between the states? – https://theconversation.com/is-there-any-hope-for-a-fairer-carve-up-of-the-gst-between-the-states-258913

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Is there any hope for a fairer carve-up of the GST between the states?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania

    When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized boost to its coffers from the federal government.

    In 2018, the Morrison government – with the full support of the then Labor opposition – handed WA a special deal for the distribution of income from the goods and service tax (GST).

    Under the deal, WA gets a much greater share of the centrally collected GST revenue than it would have been entitled to under the methods previously used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

    So what can be done to ensure a return to a fairer distribution of the GST revenue?

    How the GST carve-up is supposed to work

    The 2018 deal upended a principle known as “horizontal fiscal equalisation”. This principle seeks to ensure each state and territory has the fiscal capacity to provide its residents with a broadly similar range and quality of public services, while levying a similar level of state taxes. This applies to states with different populations and needs.

    That principle is the main reason why the quality of health care, schooling and policing in your community depends much less on which state you happen to live in, compared with other countries with a federal system. Just think of the United States.

    But that principle was jettisoned in the pursuit, by both major parties, of seats from WA in the House of Representatives, which in effect determined the outcome of the 2016, 2019 and 2022 elections.

    WA gets a much greater share of GST revenue than under methods once used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

    Holding onto the mineral wealth

    During the mining boom starting in 2000, WA became rich. While it previously received extra grants from other states, it was now having to share income from mining royalties with other states.

    But the 2018 amendment changed how the GST revenue is distributed. Instead of equalising all states to have the fiscal strength of the strongest state (such as WA during the boom), funds were now equalised to the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria. States are also guaranteed a minimum per capita share of revenue.

    The only state that benefits from these changes is Australia’s richest state: WA. Since 2018-19 it has received A$24.2 billion more than it would have done had the 2018 changes not been made.

    Combined with the $58.3 billion it has collected in mineral royalties over the past seven years, that has enabled WA to rack up cash surpluses totalling more than $18 billion. Every other state and territory recorded cash deficits over that time.

    Over the next four years, WA will receive $26.3 billion more from the carve-up of GST revenues than it would otherwise have done.

    No one worse off?

    To cajole the other states and territories into accepting this “deal”, the Morrison government agreed to “top up” the revenue from the GST to ensure none would be any worse off than if the long-standing system had remained in place.

    It estimated this “No Worse Off guarantee” (or NoWO as it is now called) would cost the federal budget $8 billion over the nine years to 2026-27, when NoWO would expire.

    To avoid expected pushback from the other states, the Albanese government agreed in 2023 to extend NoWO by another three years. It is now expected it will have cost the federal budget almost $60 billion by its scheduled expiry in 2029-30.

    This is the biggest blow-out in the cost of any single policy decision, with the exception of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This $52 billion blowout from the GST carve-up represents a massive drain on the federal budget, at a time when it is forecast to be in deficit for the next ten years, to appease the greed of Australia’s richest, and luckiest, state.

    A government that truly believed in equity, and was committed to prudent and responsible budget outcomes, would scrap this appalling piece of public policy. And an Opposition that was sincere in its claims to stand for fiscal responsibility would support any move by the government to do so.

    The system is not working as intended

    The 2018 legislation requires the Productivity Commission to report, by the end of 2026, on whether the new system is working “efficiently, effectively and as intended”. Since it clearly wasn’t intended for the changes to cost anywhere near as much as they have done, the answer to that question must surely be a resounding “no”.

    But rather than giving it such a narrow remit, the Treasurer could, and should, task the Productivity Commission with devising a way of achieving the long-standing objective of “horizontal fiscal equalisation” in a simpler, more transparent and more predictable way.

    This should be possible by reference to fewer than a dozen readily available economic, demographic and social indicators. These could replace the “black box” processes currently used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission to allocate GST. WA has been able to exploit this lack of transparency in pursuit of its claims on an unjustified share of GST revenue.

    Steven Kennedy, in his new role as head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, is reportedly open to considering controversial tax changes, including the GST carve-up. Hopefully he will be making this suggestion to the Prime Minister.

    An inquiry by the Productivity Commission along these lines would enable the government to step away from the 2018 changes in the 2027-28 budget. That would, in turn, represent a substantial contribution towards the task of budget repair. And it would reinstate a principle that has helped make Australia a fairer, and better, country than it would otherwise have been.

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

    – ref. Is there any hope for a fairer carve-up of the GST between the states? – https://theconversation.com/is-there-any-hope-for-a-fairer-carve-up-of-the-gst-between-the-states-258913

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lovering, Lecturer in International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Getty Images

    Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines.

    But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of “fiscal responsibility” and austerity politics.

    As part of the mission to “cut waste” in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised program run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered “saving for taxpayers” of $130 million – in line with the government’s overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting.

    While Finance Minister Nicola Willis dislikes the term “austerity”, her May budget cut the government’s operating allowance in half, to $1.3 billion. This came on top of budget cuts last year of around $4 billion.

    Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings.

    What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing.

    New Zealand’s public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9% in 1972 to 35.9% in 2022. And this wasn’t unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9% in 1972 to 29.9% in 2022.

    How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever?

    Austerity and managerialism

    In a recent paper, I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used.

    Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that.

    In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics.

    We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism – “Rogernomics” being the New Zealand variant – to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business.

    Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity’s growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform.

    But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity’s managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget.

    Godfather of ‘rational’ budgeting: US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara at a Vietnam War briefing in 1964.
    Getty Images

    Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years – such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture – have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defense.

    In the early 1960s, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles.

    In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defense Department’s budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan.

    The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System. Its goal was to create a “rational” budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed.

    This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing – or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out.

    What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy. These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the “New Public Management” framework that transformed state sectors all over the world.

    What are budgets for?

    Dramatic moments of spending cuts – such as the 1991 “Mother of all Budgets” in New Zealand or Elon Musk’s recent DOGE crusade in the US – stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking.

    Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about.

    Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, “automatic stabilisers” inject public money into the economy to pick it back up.

    For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society’s future commitments.

    But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function – managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives.

    From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used.

    To return to New Zealand’s school lunch program, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches – and public spending more broadly.

    Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches?

    Ian Lovering is affiliated with the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa.

    – ref. Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this? – https://theconversation.com/despite-decades-of-cost-cutting-governments-spend-more-than-ever-how-can-we-make-sense-of-this-258902

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lovering, Lecturer in International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Getty Images

    Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines.

    But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of “fiscal responsibility” and austerity politics.

    As part of the mission to “cut waste” in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised program run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered “saving for taxpayers” of $130 million – in line with the government’s overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting.

    While Finance Minister Nicola Willis dislikes the term “austerity”, her May budget cut the government’s operating allowance in half, to $1.3 billion. This came on top of budget cuts last year of around $4 billion.

    Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings.

    What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing.

    New Zealand’s public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9% in 1972 to 35.9% in 2022. And this wasn’t unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9% in 1972 to 29.9% in 2022.

    How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever?

    Austerity and managerialism

    In a recent paper, I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used.

    Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that.

    In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics.

    We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism – “Rogernomics” being the New Zealand variant – to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business.

    Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity’s growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform.

    But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity’s managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget.

    Godfather of ‘rational’ budgeting: US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara at a Vietnam War briefing in 1964.
    Getty Images

    Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years – such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture – have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defense.

    In the early 1960s, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles.

    In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defense Department’s budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan.

    The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System. Its goal was to create a “rational” budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed.

    This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing – or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out.

    What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy. These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the “New Public Management” framework that transformed state sectors all over the world.

    What are budgets for?

    Dramatic moments of spending cuts – such as the 1991 “Mother of all Budgets” in New Zealand or Elon Musk’s recent DOGE crusade in the US – stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking.

    Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about.

    Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, “automatic stabilisers” inject public money into the economy to pick it back up.

    For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society’s future commitments.

    But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function – managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives.

    From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used.

    To return to New Zealand’s school lunch program, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches – and public spending more broadly.

    Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches?

    Ian Lovering is affiliated with the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa.

    – ref. Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this? – https://theconversation.com/despite-decades-of-cost-cutting-governments-spend-more-than-ever-how-can-we-make-sense-of-this-258902

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Bribe or community benefit? Sweeteners smoothing the way for renewables projects need to be done right

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University

    Louise Beaumont/Getty

    When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react?

    Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting infrastructure will be paid, but neighbours and those further afield may not.

    As a result, renewable projects often involve schemes where the developer gives funding or resources to local community initiatives.

    Australia has dozens of these schemes, with many more to come as the clean energy transition accelerates. The Clean Energy Council estimates developers contribute about A$1,050 to communities for every megawatt of wind and about $850 for solar.

    The problem is, research shows poorly designed schemes can look a lot like bribery. Developers dish out money to gain community acceptance. Our new research points to a clear solution: design these schemes carefully.

    How do these schemes work?

    Renewable developers usually structure community-benefit schemes in one of three ways:

    • community funds, where a developer offers a one-time or ongoing payment for local infrastructure such as roads, services or community projects

    • in-kind benefits, such as investment in local sports fields or tourism initiatives

    • local ownership models, such as offering community members preferential access to shares in the company or a community co-ownership model of the project.

    In Australia, a number of community schemes are already established or planned.

    More are on their way. The Queensland government has introduced laws which require wind and solar farm developers enter into community benefit agreements.

    Worldwide, offshore wind farms have for many years involved community benefit sharing. Australia is very likely to follow suit as this industry emerges.

    Developers will sometimes set up more targeted neighbour payment schemes where funding is given to nearby landowners.

    What are they for?

    There are three reasons why benefit sharing can be a good idea overall. They are:

    1. Impact on locals: solar farms take up large areas of land, while wind farms on land or sea draw the eye and can compete with other uses of the space. Community benefit schemes can help counterbalance these impacts.

    2. Benefits are centralised: solar, wind and battery developments generate significant economic value. But this is largely captured by the developer. Benefit schemes can make residents feel the deal is fairer.

    3. Acceptance: change of any kind is often hard. Offering incentives to towns and communities can make the change easier.

    Payments to communities hosting renewable projects can look like bribes if not done carefully.
    myphotobank.com.au/Shutterstock

    Straying into bribery?

    The definition of a bribe is a benefit which influences or intends to influence a person to violate their role-based obligations. Offering money to a police officer to avoid losing your licence would count as a bribe.

    Community benefit sharing isn’t a bribe in a strict legal sense. But the payments can resemble bribes if they influence community members to accept the new development. Improving community acceptance is often a central goal of such schemes.

    The accusation is common. In the United Kingdom, researchers observe these schemes are regularly seen:

    as an attempt by local developers to ‘bribe’ local communities to ‘buy’ support for their wind farm development.

    Community members may decry a scheme as a “paltry bribe” or “shut up candy”. Some insist their “principles are not for sale”.

    Developers recognise this too. As one says:

    you don’t just turn up in a community and say, don’t worry, we’ll buy you a new rugby pitch […] because it really does look like you’re trying to buy them off.

    But do local communities have obligations which accepting a renewables project might violate?

    As part of a democracy, residents have civic obligations to make public-spirited decisions, evaluating policies and developments based not on self-interest but in a principled way.

    This is why it’s illegal to pay someone to vote for a particular candidate in an election, for instance.

    Offering money for community initiatives isn’t intrinsically wrong. As a community objector to a wind farm proposal put it:

    Of course it is a relevant planning consideration if a wind power company is offering to pour significant sums of money into a community for the life of a wind farm […] Why should that not be recognised as a good thing?

    But any economic boon to a town must be considered alongside other important concerns, rather than wiping them away.

    If these schemes operate by influencing citizens to ignore their civic duties, that’s intrinsically wrong. Worse still, it risks a backlash from offended community members.

    In the worst cases, benefit sharing operates as a pay-off, where uneasy communities are given money to reduce their resistance.

    Offshore wind farm developers overseas often set up community benefit schemes.
    Tupungato/Shutterstock

    Achieving fairness, avoiding bribery

    The solutions are straightfoward: design these schemes strategically so they are fair and avoid eroding civic obligations. Here are four aims:

    1. Minimise self-interest. Schemes should avoid large up-front payments and focus on in-kind benefits.

    2. Respect the community. Employ and contract local staff, keep the community informed and respond transparently to complaints.

    3. Encourage community involvement. Big renewable projects should stack up on energy, environmental, economic and community grounds. Robust and genuine community consultation should be used when designing any benefit scheme.

    4. Ensure integrity. Development and implementation of any scheme should be genuine, transparent and accountable.

    Getting it right

    As climate change intensifies, Australia’s clean energy transition has a clear moral urgency. But this cannot be done by steamrolling local residents or buying them off with cash for community projects.

    When community benefit schemes are sensibly designed with local input, it will boost both climate action and civic legitimacy.

    Hugh Breakey receives funding from the Blue Economy CRC. This research was funded through the project ‘Pre-conditions for the Development of Offshore Wind Energy in Australia’ by the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre.

    Charles Sampford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Professional Services Council and the Blue Economy CRC.

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

    – ref. Bribe or community benefit? Sweeteners smoothing the way for renewables projects need to be done right – https://theconversation.com/bribe-or-community-benefit-sweeteners-smoothing-the-way-for-renewables-projects-need-to-be-done-right-258903

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Bribe or community benefit? Sweeteners smoothing the way for renewables projects need to be done right

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University

    Louise Beaumont/Getty

    When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react?

    Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting infrastructure will be paid, but neighbours and those further afield may not.

    As a result, renewable projects often involve schemes where the developer gives funding or resources to local community initiatives.

    Australia has dozens of these schemes, with many more to come as the clean energy transition accelerates. The Clean Energy Council estimates developers contribute about A$1,050 to communities for every megawatt of wind and about $850 for solar.

    The problem is, research shows poorly designed schemes can look a lot like bribery. Developers dish out money to gain community acceptance. Our new research points to a clear solution: design these schemes carefully.

    How do these schemes work?

    Renewable developers usually structure community-benefit schemes in one of three ways:

    • community funds, where a developer offers a one-time or ongoing payment for local infrastructure such as roads, services or community projects

    • in-kind benefits, such as investment in local sports fields or tourism initiatives

    • local ownership models, such as offering community members preferential access to shares in the company or a community co-ownership model of the project.

    In Australia, a number of community schemes are already established or planned.

    More are on their way. The Queensland government has introduced laws which require wind and solar farm developers enter into community benefit agreements.

    Worldwide, offshore wind farms have for many years involved community benefit sharing. Australia is very likely to follow suit as this industry emerges.

    Developers will sometimes set up more targeted neighbour payment schemes where funding is given to nearby landowners.

    What are they for?

    There are three reasons why benefit sharing can be a good idea overall. They are:

    1. Impact on locals: solar farms take up large areas of land, while wind farms on land or sea draw the eye and can compete with other uses of the space. Community benefit schemes can help counterbalance these impacts.

    2. Benefits are centralised: solar, wind and battery developments generate significant economic value. But this is largely captured by the developer. Benefit schemes can make residents feel the deal is fairer.

    3. Acceptance: change of any kind is often hard. Offering incentives to towns and communities can make the change easier.

    Payments to communities hosting renewable projects can look like bribes if not done carefully.
    myphotobank.com.au/Shutterstock

    Straying into bribery?

    The definition of a bribe is a benefit which influences or intends to influence a person to violate their role-based obligations. Offering money to a police officer to avoid losing your licence would count as a bribe.

    Community benefit sharing isn’t a bribe in a strict legal sense. But the payments can resemble bribes if they influence community members to accept the new development. Improving community acceptance is often a central goal of such schemes.

    The accusation is common. In the United Kingdom, researchers observe these schemes are regularly seen:

    as an attempt by local developers to ‘bribe’ local communities to ‘buy’ support for their wind farm development.

    Community members may decry a scheme as a “paltry bribe” or “shut up candy”. Some insist their “principles are not for sale”.

    Developers recognise this too. As one says:

    you don’t just turn up in a community and say, don’t worry, we’ll buy you a new rugby pitch […] because it really does look like you’re trying to buy them off.

    But do local communities have obligations which accepting a renewables project might violate?

    As part of a democracy, residents have civic obligations to make public-spirited decisions, evaluating policies and developments based not on self-interest but in a principled way.

    This is why it’s illegal to pay someone to vote for a particular candidate in an election, for instance.

    Offering money for community initiatives isn’t intrinsically wrong. As a community objector to a wind farm proposal put it:

    Of course it is a relevant planning consideration if a wind power company is offering to pour significant sums of money into a community for the life of a wind farm […] Why should that not be recognised as a good thing?

    But any economic boon to a town must be considered alongside other important concerns, rather than wiping them away.

    If these schemes operate by influencing citizens to ignore their civic duties, that’s intrinsically wrong. Worse still, it risks a backlash from offended community members.

    In the worst cases, benefit sharing operates as a pay-off, where uneasy communities are given money to reduce their resistance.

    Offshore wind farm developers overseas often set up community benefit schemes.
    Tupungato/Shutterstock

    Achieving fairness, avoiding bribery

    The solutions are straightfoward: design these schemes strategically so they are fair and avoid eroding civic obligations. Here are four aims:

    1. Minimise self-interest. Schemes should avoid large up-front payments and focus on in-kind benefits.

    2. Respect the community. Employ and contract local staff, keep the community informed and respond transparently to complaints.

    3. Encourage community involvement. Big renewable projects should stack up on energy, environmental, economic and community grounds. Robust and genuine community consultation should be used when designing any benefit scheme.

    4. Ensure integrity. Development and implementation of any scheme should be genuine, transparent and accountable.

    Getting it right

    As climate change intensifies, Australia’s clean energy transition has a clear moral urgency. But this cannot be done by steamrolling local residents or buying them off with cash for community projects.

    When community benefit schemes are sensibly designed with local input, it will boost both climate action and civic legitimacy.

    Hugh Breakey receives funding from the Blue Economy CRC. This research was funded through the project ‘Pre-conditions for the Development of Offshore Wind Energy in Australia’ by the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre.

    Charles Sampford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Professional Services Council and the Blue Economy CRC.

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

    – ref. Bribe or community benefit? Sweeteners smoothing the way for renewables projects need to be done right – https://theconversation.com/bribe-or-community-benefit-sweeteners-smoothing-the-way-for-renewables-projects-need-to-be-done-right-258903

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New cases of meningococcal disease have been detected. What are the symptoms? And who can get vaccinated?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney

    Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if they’re eligible for vaccination.

    Invasive meningococcal disease is a rare but life-threatening illness caused by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. Invasive means the infection spreads rapidly through the blood and into your organs.

    Early emergency medical care is important for survival and to reduce the chance of long-term complications. Even in those who survive, up to 30% suffer permanent cognitive, physical or psychological disabilities.

    Thankfully, vaccines are available to protect against it.

    How do you catch it?

    Around one in ten people carry the meningococcal bacteria in their nose or throats.

    The bacteria does not easily pass from person to person by breathing the same air or sharing drinks or food – and the bacteria do not survive well outside the human body.

    It is spread through close and prolonged contact of oral and respiratory secretions, such as saliva, from others who live in your household or through deep, intimate kissing.

    There is no way to know if you carry the bacteria, as carriers don’t have symptoms.

    Who is most at risk?

    Meningococcal disease can affect anyone.

    But infants under one, adolescents and young adults aged 15–25 years, and people without a spleen or who are immunosuppressed are at a higher risk of developing invasive disease.

    Meningococcal disease notifications by age and sex

    Babies and teens are more likely to contract the disease than other age groups.
    National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System

    Although sensitive to common antibiotics such as penicillin, the meningococcal bacteria can cause severe infection and death in a matter of hours. The difficulty in picking up meningococcal disease early is that, early on, it can mimic common viral illnesses that people would recover from without any treatment.

    Most people experience a sudden onset of fever, difficulty looking at light and/or a rash. The rash is non-blanching, meaning it doesn’t fade when you apply pressure to it. But early in the illness, it can start out as a blanching rash that fades with pressure.

    Young infants may also become irritable, have difficulty waking up, or refuse to feed.

    The bacteria usually causes a meningitis – inflammation of the lining around the brain and spinal cord – or a bloodstream infection, called septicemia or sepsis. But sometimes it can cause an infection of the bone, lungs (pneumonia) or eyes (conjunctivitis).

    Protection against different strains

    There are 13 types of meningococcal bacteria that cause invasive disease, but types A, B, C, W and Y cause the most illness.

    The rapid disease progression occurs because the bacteria has a sugar capsule which allows it to evade the immune system.

    But each of the 13 types has its own unique capsule. So immunity to one strain does not offer immunity to other strains.

    Currently, two types of vaccines are available: a vaccine that protects against meningococcal A, C, W and Y (MenACWY); and another vaccine that protects against meningococcal B.

    The vaccines are manufactured differently and therefore have different mechanisms of protection.

    The MenACWY vaccine uses parts of the sugar capsule within each of the bacteria and joins them to a protein. This is called a “conjugate vaccine” and allows for a better immune response, especially in young infants.

    The MenB vaccine does not contain the sugar capsule but includes four other proteins from the surface of the meningococcal B bacteria.

    Both vaccines are registered for all people aged six months and older, and are safe for immunocompromised people.

    The vaccines can be given from six months.
    lavizzara/Shutterstock

    MenACWY vaccine

    The MenACWY vaccine is funded under the National Immunisation Program, and given for free, to all infants aged 12 months. There is also a free catch-up program for teens in Year 10.

    The MenACWY vaccine protects against disease and also decreases the bacteria load in the throat, reducing the likelihood of transmission to others.

    MenB vaccine

    The MenB vaccine recommended for all infants aged six weeks or more. But it’s only available for free to infants in South Australia and Queensland, through state-based programs, and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants nationally, via the National Immunisation Program.

    Parents of non-Indigenous infants in other states will pay around A$220–270 for two doses of the MenB vaccine.

    The MenB vaccine is highly protective against invasive disease for the person who receives the vaccine. But it does not eradicate the bacteria from the throat, nor does it decrease spread of the bacteria to others.

    Reducing meningococcal disease

    Other people who are at high risk of meningococcal exposure are also recommended for vaccination: people without a functional spleen, those with certain immunocompromising conditions, certain travellers and some lab workers.

    Since the rollout of the conjugate MenC vaccine in 2001 and the MenACWY in 2018, rates of invasive meningococcal disease have dropped dramatically, from 684 cases in 2002, to 136 cases in 2024. The most common strain to cause disease is now meningococcal B.

    Meningococcal notifications by jurisdiction

    Vaccination has reduced case numbers.
    National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System

    Another reason for adults to get vaccinated

    The MenB vaccine has also been shown to lower rates of another bacterial infection, gonorrhoea, by 33–47%. This is because the gonococcal bacteria is closely related and shares similar surface protein structures to meningococcal bacteria.

    In Australia, rates of gonorrhea have doubled over the past ten years , with higher rates among young Aboriginal and Torres Islander people.

    The Northern Territory began offering the vaccine to people aged 14 to 19 last year as part of a research trial.

    Further research is underway in Australia to better understand the meningococcal bacteria, its capability to evade the immune system and the cross protection against gonorrhoea.

    Archana Koirala has worked on research funded by the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care and NSW health. She is the chair of the Vaccination Special Interest Group through the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases.

    – ref. New cases of meningococcal disease have been detected. What are the symptoms? And who can get vaccinated? – https://theconversation.com/new-cases-of-meningococcal-disease-have-been-detected-what-are-the-symptoms-and-who-can-get-vaccinated-259049

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New cases of meningococcal disease have been detected. What are the symptoms? And who can get vaccinated?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney

    Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if they’re eligible for vaccination.

    Invasive meningococcal disease is a rare but life-threatening illness caused by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. Invasive means the infection spreads rapidly through the blood and into your organs.

    Early emergency medical care is important for survival and to reduce the chance of long-term complications. Even in those who survive, up to 30% suffer permanent cognitive, physical or psychological disabilities.

    Thankfully, vaccines are available to protect against it.

    How do you catch it?

    Around one in ten people carry the meningococcal bacteria in their nose or throats.

    The bacteria does not easily pass from person to person by breathing the same air or sharing drinks or food – and the bacteria do not survive well outside the human body.

    It is spread through close and prolonged contact of oral and respiratory secretions, such as saliva, from others who live in your household or through deep, intimate kissing.

    There is no way to know if you carry the bacteria, as carriers don’t have symptoms.

    Who is most at risk?

    Meningococcal disease can affect anyone.

    But infants under one, adolescents and young adults aged 15–25 years, and people without a spleen or who are immunosuppressed are at a higher risk of developing invasive disease.

    Meningococcal disease notifications by age and sex

    Babies and teens are more likely to contract the disease than other age groups.
    National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System

    Although sensitive to common antibiotics such as penicillin, the meningococcal bacteria can cause severe infection and death in a matter of hours. The difficulty in picking up meningococcal disease early is that, early on, it can mimic common viral illnesses that people would recover from without any treatment.

    Most people experience a sudden onset of fever, difficulty looking at light and/or a rash. The rash is non-blanching, meaning it doesn’t fade when you apply pressure to it. But early in the illness, it can start out as a blanching rash that fades with pressure.

    Young infants may also become irritable, have difficulty waking up, or refuse to feed.

    The bacteria usually causes a meningitis – inflammation of the lining around the brain and spinal cord – or a bloodstream infection, called septicemia or sepsis. But sometimes it can cause an infection of the bone, lungs (pneumonia) or eyes (conjunctivitis).

    Protection against different strains

    There are 13 types of meningococcal bacteria that cause invasive disease, but types A, B, C, W and Y cause the most illness.

    The rapid disease progression occurs because the bacteria has a sugar capsule which allows it to evade the immune system.

    But each of the 13 types has its own unique capsule. So immunity to one strain does not offer immunity to other strains.

    Currently, two types of vaccines are available: a vaccine that protects against meningococcal A, C, W and Y (MenACWY); and another vaccine that protects against meningococcal B.

    The vaccines are manufactured differently and therefore have different mechanisms of protection.

    The MenACWY vaccine uses parts of the sugar capsule within each of the bacteria and joins them to a protein. This is called a “conjugate vaccine” and allows for a better immune response, especially in young infants.

    The MenB vaccine does not contain the sugar capsule but includes four other proteins from the surface of the meningococcal B bacteria.

    Both vaccines are registered for all people aged six months and older, and are safe for immunocompromised people.

    The vaccines can be given from six months.
    lavizzara/Shutterstock

    MenACWY vaccine

    The MenACWY vaccine is funded under the National Immunisation Program, and given for free, to all infants aged 12 months. There is also a free catch-up program for teens in Year 10.

    The MenACWY vaccine protects against disease and also decreases the bacteria load in the throat, reducing the likelihood of transmission to others.

    MenB vaccine

    The MenB vaccine recommended for all infants aged six weeks or more. But it’s only available for free to infants in South Australia and Queensland, through state-based programs, and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants nationally, via the National Immunisation Program.

    Parents of non-Indigenous infants in other states will pay around A$220–270 for two doses of the MenB vaccine.

    The MenB vaccine is highly protective against invasive disease for the person who receives the vaccine. But it does not eradicate the bacteria from the throat, nor does it decrease spread of the bacteria to others.

    Reducing meningococcal disease

    Other people who are at high risk of meningococcal exposure are also recommended for vaccination: people without a functional spleen, those with certain immunocompromising conditions, certain travellers and some lab workers.

    Since the rollout of the conjugate MenC vaccine in 2001 and the MenACWY in 2018, rates of invasive meningococcal disease have dropped dramatically, from 684 cases in 2002, to 136 cases in 2024. The most common strain to cause disease is now meningococcal B.

    Meningococcal notifications by jurisdiction

    Vaccination has reduced case numbers.
    National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System

    Another reason for adults to get vaccinated

    The MenB vaccine has also been shown to lower rates of another bacterial infection, gonorrhoea, by 33–47%. This is because the gonococcal bacteria is closely related and shares similar surface protein structures to meningococcal bacteria.

    In Australia, rates of gonorrhea have doubled over the past ten years , with higher rates among young Aboriginal and Torres Islander people.

    The Northern Territory began offering the vaccine to people aged 14 to 19 last year as part of a research trial.

    Further research is underway in Australia to better understand the meningococcal bacteria, its capability to evade the immune system and the cross protection against gonorrhoea.

    Archana Koirala has worked on research funded by the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care and NSW health. She is the chair of the Vaccination Special Interest Group through the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases.

    – ref. New cases of meningococcal disease have been detected. What are the symptoms? And who can get vaccinated? – https://theconversation.com/new-cases-of-meningococcal-disease-have-been-detected-what-are-the-symptoms-and-who-can-get-vaccinated-259049

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Sussan Ley has her first big outing with the national media next week, so here are some questions for her

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

    On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley will front the National Press Club. So why is that a big deal?

    For one thing, her predecessor Peter Dutton never appeared there as opposition leader. For another, it’s a formidable forum for a new leader.

    It could all go badly wrong, but she’s right to make the early appearance. It sends a message she is not risk-averse.

    Ley wants to establish a better relationship with the Canberra Press Gallery than Dutton had. He saw the gallery journalists as part of the despised “Canberra bubble” and bypassed them when he could. That didn’t serve him well – not least because he wasn’t toughened up for when he had to face daily news conferences (with many Canberra reporters) on the election trail.

    Ley’s office has set up a WhatsApp group for gallery journalists, alerting them to who’s appearing in the media, and also dispatching short responses to things said by the government (such as links to ministers’ former statements). This matches the WhatsApp group for the gallery run by the Prime Minister’s Office. One of Ley’s press secretaries, Liam Jones, has also regularly been doing the rounds in the media corridors of Parliament House, something that very rarely happened with Dutton’s media staff.

    To the extent anyone is paying attention, Ley has made a better start than many, including some Liberals, had expected. She came out of the tiff with the Nationals well, despite having to give ground on their policy demands. Her frontbench reshuffle had flaws but wasn’t terrible. She’s struck a reasonable, rather than shrill, tone in her comments on issues, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s failure thus far to get a meeting with US President Donald Trump.

    Her next significant test will be how she handles at the Press Club questions she and her party are confronting. So here are a few for her.

    One (the most fundamental): How is she going to thread the needle between the two sides of the Liberal Party? Howard’s old “broad church” answer no longer holds. The church is fractured. In an era of identity politics, the Liberals have a massive identity crisis. The party’s conservatives are hardline, have hold of the party’s (narrow) base, and will undermine Ley if they can. Its moderates will struggle to shape its key policies in a way that will appeal to small-l liberal voters in urban seats.

    Two: How and when will she deal with the future of the Coalition’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050? She has put all policies on the table (but made exceptions for several Nationals’ core policies). There is a strong case for her staking out her own position on net zero, and getting the policy settled sooner rather than later. With younger voters having eschewed the Liberals, Ley told The Daily Aus podcast this week,“I want young people to know first and foremost that I want to listen to them and meet them where they are”. One place they are is in support of net zero by 2050. If the Liberals deserted that, they’d be making the challenge of attracting more youth votes a herculean one.

    For the opposition. net zero is likely THE climate debate of this term – and such debates are at best difficult and at worst lethal for Liberal leaders.

    Three: Won’t it be near impossible for the Liberals to get a respectable proportion of women in its House of Representatives team without quotas? Over the years, Ley has been equivocal on the issue. She told The Daily Aus: “Each of our [Liberal state] divisions is responsible for its own world, if you like, when it comes to [candidate] selections”. This is unlikely to cut it: she needs to have a view, and a strategy. Targets haven’t worked.

    Four: Ley says she wants to run a constructive opposition, so how constructive will it be in the tax debate Treasurer Jim Chalmers launched this week? Ley might have a chat with John Howard about the 1980s, when the Liberals had internal arguments about whether to support or oppose some of the Hawke government’s reform measures. Obviously, no total buy-in should be expected but to oppose reforms for the sake of it would discredit a party trying to sell its economic credentials.

    More generally, how constructive or obstructive will the opposition be in the Senate? This raises matters of principle, not just political opportunism. In the new Senate the government will have to negotiate on legislation with either the opposition or the Greens. If the opposition constantly forces Labor into the arms of the Greens, that could produce legislation that (from the Liberals’ point of view) is worse than if the Liberals were Labor’s partner. How does that sit with them philosophically?

    Five: Finally, how active will Ley be in trying to drive improvements in the appalling Liberal state organisations, especially in NSW (her home state) and Victoria?

    The Liberals’ federal executive extended federal intervention in the NSW division this week, with a new oversight committee, headed by onetime premier Nick Greiner. But the announcement spurred immediate backbiting, with conservatives seeing it advantaging the moderates. Ley is well across the NSW factions: her numbers man is Alex Hawke – whom she elevated to the shadow cabinet – from Scott Morrison’s old centre right faction, and she has a staffer from that faction in a senior position in her office. The faction has also protected her preselection in the past.

    In Victoria, the factional infighting has been beyond parody, with former leader John Pesutto scratching around for funds to avoid bankruptcy after losing a defamation case brought by colleague Moira Deeming. Some Liberals think the state party could even lose what should be the unlosable state election next year.

    That’s just the start of the questions for Ley. Meanwhile, the party this week has set up an inquiry into the election disaster, to be conducted by former federal minister Nick Minchin and former NSW minister Pru Goward. Identifying what went wrong won’t be hard for them – mostly, it was blindingly obvious. Recommending solutions that the party can and will implement – that will be the difficult bit.

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

    – ref. Grattan on Friday: Sussan Ley has her first big outing with the national media next week, so here are some questions for her – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-sussan-ley-has-her-first-big-outing-with-the-national-media-next-week-so-here-are-some-questions-for-her-258970

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Sussan Ley has her first big outing with the national media next week, so here are some questions for her

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

    On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley will front the National Press Club. So why is that a big deal?

    For one thing, her predecessor Peter Dutton never appeared there as opposition leader. For another, it’s a formidable forum for a new leader.

    It could all go badly wrong, but she’s right to make the early appearance. It sends a message she is not risk-averse.

    Ley wants to establish a better relationship with the Canberra Press Gallery than Dutton had. He saw the gallery journalists as part of the despised “Canberra bubble” and bypassed them when he could. That didn’t serve him well – not least because he wasn’t toughened up for when he had to face daily news conferences (with many Canberra reporters) on the election trail.

    Ley’s office has set up a WhatsApp group for gallery journalists, alerting them to who’s appearing in the media, and also dispatching short responses to things said by the government (such as links to ministers’ former statements). This matches the WhatsApp group for the gallery run by the Prime Minister’s Office. One of Ley’s press secretaries, Liam Jones, has also regularly been doing the rounds in the media corridors of Parliament House, something that very rarely happened with Dutton’s media staff.

    To the extent anyone is paying attention, Ley has made a better start than many, including some Liberals, had expected. She came out of the tiff with the Nationals well, despite having to give ground on their policy demands. Her frontbench reshuffle had flaws but wasn’t terrible. She’s struck a reasonable, rather than shrill, tone in her comments on issues, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s failure thus far to get a meeting with US President Donald Trump.

    Her next significant test will be how she handles at the Press Club questions she and her party are confronting. So here are a few for her.

    One (the most fundamental): How is she going to thread the needle between the two sides of the Liberal Party? Howard’s old “broad church” answer no longer holds. The church is fractured. In an era of identity politics, the Liberals have a massive identity crisis. The party’s conservatives are hardline, have hold of the party’s (narrow) base, and will undermine Ley if they can. Its moderates will struggle to shape its key policies in a way that will appeal to small-l liberal voters in urban seats.

    Two: How and when will she deal with the future of the Coalition’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050? She has put all policies on the table (but made exceptions for several Nationals’ core policies). There is a strong case for her staking out her own position on net zero, and getting the policy settled sooner rather than later. With younger voters having eschewed the Liberals, Ley told The Daily Aus podcast this week,“I want young people to know first and foremost that I want to listen to them and meet them where they are”. One place they are is in support of net zero by 2050. If the Liberals deserted that, they’d be making the challenge of attracting more youth votes a herculean one.

    For the opposition. net zero is likely THE climate debate of this term – and such debates are at best difficult and at worst lethal for Liberal leaders.

    Three: Won’t it be near impossible for the Liberals to get a respectable proportion of women in its House of Representatives team without quotas? Over the years, Ley has been equivocal on the issue. She told The Daily Aus: “Each of our [Liberal state] divisions is responsible for its own world, if you like, when it comes to [candidate] selections”. This is unlikely to cut it: she needs to have a view, and a strategy. Targets haven’t worked.

    Four: Ley says she wants to run a constructive opposition, so how constructive will it be in the tax debate Treasurer Jim Chalmers launched this week? Ley might have a chat with John Howard about the 1980s, when the Liberals had internal arguments about whether to support or oppose some of the Hawke government’s reform measures. Obviously, no total buy-in should be expected but to oppose reforms for the sake of it would discredit a party trying to sell its economic credentials.

    More generally, how constructive or obstructive will the opposition be in the Senate? This raises matters of principle, not just political opportunism. In the new Senate the government will have to negotiate on legislation with either the opposition or the Greens. If the opposition constantly forces Labor into the arms of the Greens, that could produce legislation that (from the Liberals’ point of view) is worse than if the Liberals were Labor’s partner. How does that sit with them philosophically?

    Five: Finally, how active will Ley be in trying to drive improvements in the appalling Liberal state organisations, especially in NSW (her home state) and Victoria?

    The Liberals’ federal executive extended federal intervention in the NSW division this week, with a new oversight committee, headed by onetime premier Nick Greiner. But the announcement spurred immediate backbiting, with conservatives seeing it advantaging the moderates. Ley is well across the NSW factions: her numbers man is Alex Hawke – whom she elevated to the shadow cabinet – from Scott Morrison’s old centre right faction, and she has a staffer from that faction in a senior position in her office. The faction has also protected her preselection in the past.

    In Victoria, the factional infighting has been beyond parody, with former leader John Pesutto scratching around for funds to avoid bankruptcy after losing a defamation case brought by colleague Moira Deeming. Some Liberals think the state party could even lose what should be the unlosable state election next year.

    That’s just the start of the questions for Ley. Meanwhile, the party this week has set up an inquiry into the election disaster, to be conducted by former federal minister Nick Minchin and former NSW minister Pru Goward. Identifying what went wrong won’t be hard for them – mostly, it was blindingly obvious. Recommending solutions that the party can and will implement – that will be the difficult bit.

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

    – ref. Grattan on Friday: Sussan Ley has her first big outing with the national media next week, so here are some questions for her – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-sussan-ley-has-her-first-big-outing-with-the-national-media-next-week-so-here-are-some-questions-for-her-258970

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The 28 Days Later franchise redefined zombie films. But the undead have an old, rich and varied history

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher White, Historian, The University of Queensland

    The history of the dead – or, more precisely, the history of the living’s fascination with the dead – is an intriguing one.

    As a researcher of the supernatural, I’m often pulled aside at conferences or at the school gate, and told in furtive whispers about people’s encounters with the dead.

    The dead haunt our imagination in a number of different forms, whether as “cold spots”, or the walking dead popularised in zombie franchises such as 28 Days Later.

    The franchise’s latest release, 28 Years Later, brings back the Hollywood zombie in all its glory – but these archetypal creatures have a much wider and varied history.

    Zombis, revenants and the returning dead

    A zombie is typically a reanimated corpse: a category of the returning dead. Scholars refer to them as “revenants”, and continue to argue over their exact characteristics.

    In the Haitian Vodou religion, the zombi is not the same as the Hollywood zombie. Instead, zombi are people who, as a religious punishment, are drugged, buried alive, then dug out and forced into slavery.

    The Hollywood zombie, however, draws more from medieval European stories about the returning dead than from Vodou.

    A perfect setting for a ‘zombie’ film

    In 28 Years Later, the latest entry in Danny Boyle’s blockbuster horror franchise, the monsters technically aren’t zombies because they aren’t dead. Instead, they are infected by a “rage virus”, accidentally released by a group of animal rights activists in the beginning of the first film.

    This third film focuses on events almost three decades after the first film. The British Isles is quarantined, and the young protagonist Spike (Alfie Williams) and his family live in a village on Lindisfarne Island. This island, one of the most important sites in early medieval British Christianity, is isolated and protected by a tidal causeway that links it to the mainland.

    Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Alfie Williams star in the new film, out in Australian cinemas today.
    Sony Pictures

    The film leans heavily on how we imagine the medieval world, with scenes showing silhouetted fletchers at work making arrows, children training with bows, towering ossuaries and various memento mori. There’s also footage from earlier depictions of medieval warfare. And at one point, the characters seek sanctuary in the ruins of Fountains Abbey, in Yorkshire, which was built in 1132.

    The medieval locations and imagery of 28 Years Later evoke the long history of revenants, and the returned dead who once roved medieval England.

    Early accounts of the medieval dead

    In the medieval world, or at least the parts that wrote in Latin, the returning dead were usually called spiritus (“spirit”), but they weren’t limited to the non-corporeal like today’s ghosts are.

    Medieval Latin Christians from as early as the 3rd century saw the dead as part of a parallel society that mirrored the world of the living, where each group relied on the other to aid them through the afterlife.

    Depiction of the undead from a medieval manuscript.
    British Library, Yates Thompson MS 13

    While some medieval ghosts would warn the living about what awaited sinners in the afterlife, or lead their relatives to treasure, or prophesise the future, some also returned to terrorise the living.

    And like the “zombies” affected by the rage virus in 28 Years Later, these revenants could go into a frenzy in the presence of the living.

    Thietmar, the Prince-Bishop of Merseburg, Germany, wrote the Chronicon Thietmari (Thietmar’s Chronicle) between 1012 and 1018, and included a number of ghost stories that featured revenants.

    Although not all of them framed the dead as terrifying, they certainly didn’t paint them as friendly, either. In one story, a congregation of the dead at a church set the priest upon the altar, before burning him to ashes – intended to be read as a mirror of pagan sacrifice.

    These dead were physical beings, capable of seizing a man and sacrificing him in his own church.

    A threat to be dealt with

    The English monastic historian William of Newburgh (1136–98) wrote revenants were so common in his day that recording them all would be exhausting. According to him, the returned dead were frequently seen in 12th century England.

    So, instead of providing a exhausting list, he offered some choice examples which, like most medieval ghost stories, had a good Christian moral attached to them.

    William’s revenants mostly killed the people of the towns they lived, returning to the grave between their escapades. But the medieval English had a method for dealing with these monsters; they dug them up, tore out the heart and then burned the body.

    Other revenants were dealt with less harshly, William explained. In one case, all it took was the Bishop of Lincoln writing a letter of absolution to stop a dead man returning to his widow’s bed.

    These medieval dead were also thought to spread disease – much like those infected with the rage virus – and were capable of physically killing someone.

    Depiction of the undead from a medieval manuscript.
    British Library, Arundel MS 83.

    The undead, further north

    In medieval Scandinavia and Iceland, the undead draugr were extremely strong, hideous to look at and stunk of decomposition. Some were immune to human weapons and often killed animals near their tombs before building up to kill humans. Like their English counterparts, they also spread disease.

    But according to the Eyrbyggja saga, an anonymous 13th or 14th century text written in Iceland, all it took was a type of community court and the threat of legal action to drive off these returned dead.

    It’s a method the survivors in 28 Years Later didn’t try.

    The dead live on

    The first-hand zombie stories that were common during the medieval period started to dwindle in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation, which focused more on individuals’ behaviours and salvation.

    Nonetheless, their influence can still be felt in Catholic ritual practices today, such as in prayers offered for the dead, and the lighting of votive candles.

    We still tell ghost stories, and we still worry about things that go bump in the night. And of course, we continue to explore the undead in all its forms on the big screen.

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

    – ref. The 28 Days Later franchise redefined zombie films. But the undead have an old, rich and varied history – https://theconversation.com/the-28-days-later-franchise-redefined-zombie-films-but-the-undead-have-an-old-rich-and-varied-history-247900

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: It’s not just ‘chronic fatigue’: ME/CFS is much more than being tired

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Annesley, Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Cell and Molecular Biology, La Trobe University

    Edwin Tan/Getty

    Myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is as complex as its name is difficult to pronounce. It’s sometimes referred to as simply “chronic fatigue”, but this is just one of its symptoms.

    In fact, ME/CFS is a complex neurological disease, recognised by the World Health Organization, that affects nearly every system in the body.

    The name refers to muscle pain (myalgia), inflammation of the brain (encephalomyelitis), and a profound, disabling fatigue that rest can’t relieve.

    However, the illness’s complexity – and its disproportionate impact on women – means ME/CFS has often been incorrectly labelled as a psychological disorder.

    What is ME/CFS?

    ME/CFS affects people of all ages but is most commonly diagnosed in middle age. It is two to three times more common in women than men.

    While the exact cause is unknown, ME/CFS is commonly triggered by an infection.

    The condition has two core symptoms: a disabling, long-lasting fatigue that rest doesn’t relieve, and a worsening of symptoms after physical or mental exertion.

    This is known as post-exertional malaise. It means even slight exertion can make symptoms much worse, and take much longer than expected to recover.

    This varies between people, but could mean simply having a shower or attending a social event triggers worse symptoms, either immediately or days later.

    These symptoms include pain, sleep issues, cognitive difficulties (such as thinking, memory and decision-making), flu-like symptoms, dizziness, gastrointestinal problems, heart rate fluctuations and many more.

    For some people, symptoms can be managed in a way that allows them to work. For others, the disease is so severe it can leave them housebound or bedridden.

    Symptoms can fluctuate, changing over time and in intensity, making ME/CFS a particularly unpredictable and misunderstood condition.

    Not just ‘in your head’

    A growing body of scientific evidence, however, clearly shows ME/CFS is a biological, not mental, illness.

    Neuroimaging studies have revealed differences in the brain activity and structure of people with ME/CFS, including poor blood flow and lower levels of neurotransmitters (chemical messengers in the nervous system).

    Other research indicates the condition affects how the body produces energy (the metabolism), fights infection (the immune system), delivers oxygen to muscles and tissues, and regulates blood pressure and heart rate (the vascular system).

    Issues with criteria

    To diagnose ME/CFS, a clinician will also exclude other possible causes of fatigue, which can be a lengthy process. A patient needs to meet a set of clinical criteria.

    But one of the major challenges in researching ME/CFS is that the diagnostic criteria clinicians use vary worldwide.

    Some criteria focus solely on fatigue and include people with alternate reasons for fatigue, such as a psychiatric disorder.

    Others are more narrow and may only capture ME/CFS patients with more severe symptoms.

    As a result, it can be very difficult to compare across different studies, as the reasons they include or exclude participants vary so much.

    Changes to the guidelines

    In Australia, doctors often receive little formal education about ME/CFS.

    Most commonly, they follow the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners’ clinical guidelines to diagnose and manage ME/CFS. These are based on the Canadian Consensus Criteria which are considered more stringent than other ME/CFS diagnostic criteria.

    They include post-exertional malaise and fatigue for more than six months as core symptoms.

    However, these guidelines are outdated and rely heavily on controversial studies that assumed the primary cause of ME/CFS was “deconditioning” – a loss of physical strength due to a fear or avoidance of exercise.

    These guidelines recommend ME/CFS should be treated with cognitive behavioural therapy – a common psychotherapy which focuses on changing unhealthy thoughts and behaviours – and graded exercise therapy, which gradually introduces more demanding physical activity.

    While cognitive behaviour therapy can be effective for some people managing ME/CFS, it’s important not to frame this condition primarily as a psychological issue.

    Graded exercise therapy can encourage people to push beyond their “energy envelope”, which means they do more than their body can manage. This can trigger post-exertional malaise and a worsening of symptoms.

    In June 2024, the Australian government announced A$1.1 million towards developing new clinical guidelines for diagnosing and managing ME/CFS.

    Leading organisations have scrapped the recommendation of graded exercise therapy in the United States (in 2015) and the United Kingdom (in 2021). Hopefully Australia will follow suit.

    What can people with ME/CFS do?

    While we wait for updated clinical guidelines, “pacing” – or working within your energy envelope – has shown some success in managing symptoms. This means monitoring and limiting how much energy you expend.

    Some evidence also suggests people who rest in the early stages of their initial illness often experience better long-term outcomes with ME/CFS.

    This is especially relevant after the COVID pandemic and with the emergence of long COVID. Studies indicate more than half of those affected meet stringent clinical criteria for ME/CFS.

    In times of acute illness we should resist the temptation to push through. Choosing to rest may be a crucial step in preventing a condition that is much more debilitating than the original infection.

    The Conversation

    Sarah Annesley receives funding from The Judith Jane Mason & Harold Stannett Williams Memorial Foundation and ME Research UK (SCIO charity number SCO36942).

    – ref. It’s not just ‘chronic fatigue’: ME/CFS is much more than being tired – https://theconversation.com/its-not-just-chronic-fatigue-me-cfs-is-much-more-than-being-tired-258803

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –