NewzIntel.com

Category: Features

  • MIL-Evening Report: While the Liberals haemorrhaged, the Nationals held their own. Is it time to break up the Coalition?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Botterill, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

    Among the notable features of this year’s election campaign was that Australia’s second-oldest political party was apparently missing in action. At the same time, it managed to avoid the rout inflicted on its coalition partner.

    The Nationals, who have represented rural and regional Australia in the federal parliament for more than a century, were nowhere to be seen as an identifiable, separate political party.

    This isn’t unusual. The parties that make up the Coalition do highly targeted messaging in their electorates, but then fall neatly into policy lockstep when an election is called. This time, however, the Nationals seemed particularly shy.

    Leader David Littleproud stopped issuing media releases on April 24, a full nine days before the election was held, and his speech to the National Press Club given that day was not available on the party website. It is hard to imagine former party leaders Tim Fischer, John Anderson or Ian Sinclair being quite so reticent.

    The focus of the commentary since election night has been on the Liberals’ failings, particularly in the major cities. You could be forgiven for thinking “Coalition” was a synonym for “Liberals”.

    But as the Liberal Party tries to reckon with these failings, the Nats are in a position of increasing power. The great survivors of Australian politics now appear to be better at surviving than their coalition counterparts. It’s just a question of how they want to use that power and longevity.

    Growing party power

    The Nationals are a uniquely Australian phenomenon. First, they are an avowedly agrarian party in a highly urbanised country.

    Second and more distinctly, they are part of what the rest of the world would see as a decidedly odd coalition arrangement. Elsewhere, coalition governments are negotiated after the election result is known and involve public bargaining and horse trading.

    In the Australian coalition arrangement, these negotiations occur behind closed doors and can hold even in opposition. The Nats benefit because they have access to ministerial and shadow ministerial positions with the power, salary and other advantages that these confer.

    The National Party largely held its own in the face of the Labor landslide. At most, it lost one of its 10 House of Representatives seats: Calare in northern New South Wales, which has been held by a former Nat, now independent.

    Its primary vote actually increased marginally from 3.6% in 2022 to 4.0%. This is less than One Nation (6.3%) but because of its dispersed vote, One Nation didn’t win a lower house seat.

    The Nats appear likely to lose a NSW senator as part of the joint party ticket. Nonetheless, the Nats are now a proportionally larger force in the Coalition, with Nats and Nationals-aligned LNP members accounting for just over 40% of Coalition MPs.

    On that basis they could become more influential over policies and shadow portfolios. Including senators, they now account for 30% of the Coalition party room.

    At a crossroads

    The demise of the Nationals has been predicted for decades, but still they persist.

    The peculiar Australian coalition arrangement works for them. They will benefit both from holding shadow ministerial positions if the Coalition is retained and likely having a greater role in determining policy direction.

    Whether the Liberals benefit from a continuing coalition is an open question. They need to rebuild in the cities and focus on regaining the support of voters who are socially liberal but economically conservative, younger, and female. There’ll inevitably be a review of what went wrong for the Liberals, and this might best be done free of ties to the Nats.

    The choice seems to be between shifting policy closer to the ten community independents or remaining hitched to the conservative Nationals. The ill-fated nuclear power policy has, after all, been attributed to David Littleproud.

    Deciding which way to fall won’t be easy. Apparently aware of his party’s increased leverage, Nationals Senator Matt Canavan has said they were led too much by the Liberals during the last parliament. He said:

    I worry that we have been gun shy in this last term of parliament in a futile attempt to give the Liberals space or some sort of opportunity to win seats in the city.

    So is now the time for the Coalition partners to go it alone? Probably not.

    On present numbers, the Liberals could struggle to form the opposition in their own right. The combined LNP in Queensland makes the situation even more complicated.

    The Nats have no incentive to leave. Open competition could see them lose seats to the Liberals in the future.

    And besides, two Liberal leadership contenders, Angus Taylor and Sussan Ley, hold seats with significant rural histories, both of which have been held by the Country/National Party.

    Linda Botterill has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (now Agrifutures).

    – ref. While the Liberals haemorrhaged, the Nationals held their own. Is it time to break up the Coalition? – https://theconversation.com/while-the-liberals-haemorrhaged-the-nationals-held-their-own-is-it-time-to-break-up-the-coalition-255626

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Utu’ as foreign policy: how a Māori worldview can make sense of a shifting world order

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Ross Smith, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury

    Getty Images

    There is a growing feeling in New Zealand that the regional geopolitical situation is becoming less stable and more conflicted. China has ramped up its Pacific engagement, most recently with the Cook Islands, and the United States under Donald Trump is abandoning the old multilateral world order.

    As a result, we’re beginning to see New Zealand shift away from a two-decades-long preference for engaging with multiple partners towards a more conventional balancing strategy.

    Essentially, this attempts to counter the perceived threat from a strong country – namely China – with a combination of external alliances and internal policies.

    Externally, New Zealand has sought re-align itself within the US-led security sphere. Participation in pillar two of the AUKUS security pact has been seriously discussed, and New Zealand has actively engaged with NATO as a member of the “Indo-Pacific Four” (along with Australia, Japan and the Republic of Korea).

    Internally, a NZ$12 billion “defence plan” was announced in early April. This will see New Zealand increase defence spending from just over 1% of GDP to more than 2% over the next eight years.

    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has made no secret of these changing priorities. He has said he is simply taking “the world as it is”, adding:

    this realism is a shift from our predecessors’ vaguer notions of an indigenous foreign policy that no-one else understood, let alone shared.

    This was a direct repudiation of the previous Labour government’s foreign minister, Nanaia Mahuta. Her tenure had offered a glimpse of what a foreign policy guided by te ao Māori – the Māori worldview – might look like.

    Four tikanga Māori principles underpinned the policy: manaakitanga (hospitality), whanaungatanga (connectedness), mahi tahi and kotahitanga (unity through collaboration), and kaitiakitanga (intergenerational guardianship).

    ‘The world as it is’: Foreign Minister Winston Peters speaks at Rātana celebrations in Whanganui, January 24 2025.
    Getty Images

    Beyond Western-centric thinking

    Clearly, te ao Māori offers a very different way of looking at international relations. At its core it adopts a “relational” understanding of the world that views reality as a series of entanglements: “human with human, human with nonhuman, nonhuman with human, human and nonhuman with transcendent”.

    It is also a non-anthropocentric view: humans are not the masters of the world but rather stewards or custodians of a complex web of relations.

    But as we argue in a recent Global Policy article, despite good intentions, Mahuta’s four tikanga Māori were mostly used rhetorically. They did not fundamentally alter New Zealand’s foreign policy, which remained firmly Western-centric.

    We suggest those four tikanga principles would be enhanced by adding the concept of “utu” as a kind of overarching framework.

    Largely thanks to the famous 1983 film of the same name, utu is often thought to simply mean violent revenge. In fact, it is a much deeper concept that refers to the “process of restoring physical and spiritual relationships to an equal or harmonious state”.

    Utu as a foreign policy framework

    A foreign policy underpinned by utu, therefore, would seek to build relationships that are harmonious and reciprocal.

    Harmony, in this sense, goes beyond notions of an international order characterised by global peace, greater connectedness, increased cooperation and interdependence.

    While these are important, an utu-informed view of harmony would also take into account the relationship between humans and the natural world, and between present, past and future generations.

    Similarly, in the Western-centric view, reciprocity is typically “invoked as an appropriate standard of behaviour which can produce cooperation among sovereign states”.

    But utu involves a reciprocity built through hospitality (manaakitanga), something which has to be given even if serious discord exists in a relationship. Reciprocity is also important in interactions between humans and the natural world.

    Consequently, an utu foreign policy doctrine would offer a radically different lens than New Zealand is currently using.

    A genuinely independent foreign policy

    Firstly, it would require New Zealand to reject the Western geopolitical construct
    of the “Indo-Pacific”, which vastly oversimplifies the complex realities of the region.

    And it would mean viewing China not as an existential threat, but rather as a crucial relationship that is subject to the principles of manaakitanga, despite growing discord and diplomatic challenges.

    Secondly, it would see New Zealand recognise climate change as the primary existential threat to the status quo. This would align closely with the country’s Pacific neighbours whose Blue Pacific initiative offers an alternative to the Indo-Pacific focus.

    Lastly, it would help New Zealand more consistently and coherently pursue a genuinely independent foreign policy. This should have bipartisan appeal, as it would give New Zealand a unique perspective on the world.

    Ultimately, as New Zealand faces a more complex regional environment and a range of national security challenges, utu in its true sense offers a more constructive framework.

    Perhaps adopting a more complex – and more humble – understanding of the world, as provided by te ao Māori, would give policymakers an alternative pathway to simply taking “the world as it is”.

    The author acknowledges the contribution of independent researcher Bonnie Holster, co-author of the Global Policy paper on which this article is based.

    Nicholas Ross Smith 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. ‘Utu’ as foreign policy: how a Māori worldview can make sense of a shifting world order – https://theconversation.com/utu-as-foreign-policy-how-a-maori-worldview-can-make-sense-of-a-shifting-world-order-255602

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia is set to be a renewables nation. After Labor’s win, there’s no turning back

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

    bmphotographer/Shutterstock

    An emphatic election victory for the incumbent Labor government means Australia’s rapid shift to renewable energy will continue. As Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said on Saturday:

    In 2022, the Australian people voted to finally act on climate change. After three years of progress […] in 2025 they said keep going.

    The election result also means the debate about energy policy is now, in broad terms, over. Australia’s energy future is wind and solar, backed by storage.

    Coal and gas will have a fast-declining role to play and nuclear energy will have none at all. Australia is set to be a renewables nation. There is no turning back now.

    Cementing renewables investment

    By continuing to build renewables capacity, the returned Labor government can position Australia on the world stage as a genuine leader on clean energy.

    The Albanese government has set a national target of more than 80% of the main national electricity grid running on renewables by 2030. With such a large majority in parliament, Labor may well be in government at that time.

    Australia already has the world’s highest per-capita solar uptake, with about 300,000 solar systems installed each year. One in three Australian homes now has rooftop solar.

    Labor is complementing this boom with a new home battery discount scheme, which aims to have more than one million batteries installed by 2030. This will help stabilise the grid by reducing demand at peak times.

    But more investment in renewables is needed. The policy certainty of a returned Labor government should help to attract international capital. This is important, because more than 70% of investment in renewables in Australia comes from offshore.

    Securing climate consensus

    Labor’s win also means it can finally bed down a national consensus on climate policy.

    A recent survey on Australian attitudes to climate action suggested community views can shift if people see action is taken by governments and big business.

    This does not mean community opposition to renewable energy will evaporate – especially in regional Australia. The federal government must work with industry players and other levels of government to ensure proper public consultation. The new Net Zero Economy Authority will play an important role in ensuring the regions and their workers benefit from the energy transition.

    For its part, the Coalition needs to do some soul-searching. Australian voters returned a number of climate-friendly independents in key seats. The Coalition also failed to win support from younger Australians, who typically view renewables favourably.

    All this suggests continued opposition to renewables is unlikely to help the Coalition form government anytime soon. What’s more, continuing to promote nuclear power – which some in the Coalition are pushing for – makes little sense in an increasingly renewables-dominated grid.

    Doubling down on international climate cooperation

    Labor’s plans to rapidly expand renewable energy strengthen Australia’s credentials to host the COP31 UN climate talks with Pacific island countries next year.

    Australia’s bid has strong support from other nations. Turkey – the only other nation with its hand up to host – has so far resisted pressure from Australia to withdraw its bid. In support of their own bid, Turkish representatives pointed to uncertainty in Australia ahead of the May election – however that uncertainty has now passed.

    Adelaide will host the talks if Australia’s bid succeeds. This will be a chance to share our world-beating renewables story – including in South Australia, which is set to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2027.

    Australia could also use the talks in South Australia to promote new export industries that use renewable energy, especially plans to produce green iron and green steel at Whyalla.

    Hosting rights could attract investment in Australia’s renewables rollout and help promote exports of critical minerals and green metals. And it would enable Australia to cement its place in the Pacific during a time of increased geo-strategic competition, by promoting a renewables partnership for the whole region.

    Australia must move fast and secure the COP31 bid at climate talks in Germany next month. Any delay risks a less ambitious summit next year, because building consensus for new initiatives takes time.

    South Australia has made a bold bid to host COP31 (SA Government)

    Seizing our economic opportunities

    As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said during his victory speech on Saturday, renewable energy is “an opportunity we must work together to seize for the future of our economy”.

    Australia is the world’s largest exporter of raw iron ore and metallurgical coal, both used extensively in offshore steelmaking.

    But Australia can create jobs and reduce emissions by refining iron ore in Australia using renewables and green hydrogen.

    The potential export value of green iron is estimated at A$295 billion a year, or three times the current value of iron ore exports. More broadly, our clean energy exports – including green metals, fertilisers and fuels – could be worth six to eight times more than our fossil fuel exports, analysis suggests.

    A key challenge for the returned government is assuring markets such as Japan that Australia is a long-term strategic partner, even while redirecting trade and investment away from coal and gas exports and toward long-term clean energy industries.

    Embracing Australia’s future

    Australians have delivered a strong mandate for climate action. The returned Labor government must ensure this support is not squandered, and voter trust is not lost.

    This means seizing the opportunity, once and for all, to shift Australia from our past as a fossil fuel heavyweight to our future as a renewables superpower.

    Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

    Ben Newell receives funding from the Australian Research Council

    – ref. Australia is set to be a renewables nation. After Labor’s win, there’s no turning back – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-set-to-be-a-renewables-nation-after-labors-win-theres-no-turning-back-256081

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cheap overseas, ruinous in Australia: here’s how to make double-glazed windows the norm

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trivess Moore, Associate Professor in Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University

    New Africa/Shutterstock

    In Europe, double-glazed windows are standard. But in Australia, these energy-saving windows are remarkably uncommon.

    Correctly installed, the effect of double-glazing is remarkable. Instead of a house losing or gaining huge amounts of heat through its windows, double-glazed windows help keep the indoor temperature at a consistent temperature – reducing the need to crank up the air-con or heater.

    In hot parts of Australia, these windows would keep out heat. In cold, they would keep heat in. They also slash outside noise. Houses with double-glazing can add resale value and even improve occupant health.

    Why are they not standard? There are several reasons. But our research in Victoria found the main one is cost – double-glazing costs much more than a standard single-glazed window.

    Heat loss and gain through windows is responsible for about 1.5% of Australia’s total energy use. As climate change intensifies, making double-glazing standard in Australia would cut household energy bills and make life indoors more pleasant. Other countries are moving to even higher performance triple-glazed windows. But Australia is stuck.

    Why does double glazing work so well?

    Windows let light and often air into a home. But they can also be the main way heat enters or leaves. Double-glazing works by adding a gap between two panes, often filled with dense argon gas, which doesn’t transfer heat well. The window frame material is important, too, to reduce heat transfer.

    We measure the insulating quality of a window with a U-value – essentially, how much heat can be transferred through the glass. The lower this value, the more insulating the window.

    A basic single-glazed window has a U-value of about 6. On a typical Australian home, these windows mean significant air conditioning is often required to maintain a comfortable temperature indoors during summer and winter.

    Double-glazed windows with advanced design features common in North America and Europe typically have a U-value of 2.4 or less. When combined with wall and roof insulation, they can significantly reduce the need for heating or cooling. Triple-glazed are better still, with a U-value of 0.8 or less.

    Many countries with snowy winters have taken to double-glazed windows as a way to reduce heating costs.
    brizmaker/Shutterstock

    Standard overseas, rare in Australia

    In the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and much of Europe, double-glazed windows have been the norm for several decades. Commonly, these windows use argon gas between the two sheets and improve insulation further with low emittance coatings, thin transparent layers of metal which block solar rays.

    In many of these countries, single-glazed windows have largely disappeared and retrofitting older houses with double-glazing is routine.

    Anyone embarking on a renovation in Australia will soon discover double-glazing tends to be seen as a specialist eco-retrofit measure rather than something done as standard.

    In 2016, only 6% of windows installed in new houses in Australia had U-values below 4. In 2024, that figure was 19%, indicating high performance windows are slowly becoming more common. But there’s still much to do to make them the norm.

    Why is progress slow? We spoke to stakeholders in window manufacturing and building in Australia.

    These industry experts explained why Australia is lagging:

    • historically low-cost energy means the typical response to heat or cold is to install air conditioning

    • single-glazed windows have long been the norm

    • Australians often haven’t heard of high-performance windows or understand why they matter

    • only a few companies make these windows in Australia, meaning competition is limited and costs remain high

    • at present, there’s no requirement to include double-glazed windows in new builds or renovations

    • housing affordability issues mean owners want to keep upfront construction costs as low as possible.

    Window manufacturers in Australia are interested in moving into double-glazing, but the demand isn’t there yet.
    Anatoliy Cherkas/Shutterstock

    What should be done?

    In our research, many windows industry insiders told us they were ready to scale up production of higher performance windows. The skills and technologies needed are here. What’s missing was the demand.

    When we interviewed builders, they told us the choice of windows wasn’t simple. They had to weigh up material costs, existing supplier relationships and industry practices. Some told us it was cheaper at times to import from Europe or Asia than to buy Australian-made.

    In part, this is a chicken and egg problem. Prices are high because there’s little demand and demand is limited because prices are high.

    So what should be done?

    Overseas experience has shown boosting demand is the key. If double-glazed windows become more common, more manufacturers will enter the Australian market and prices will drop.

    The quickest way to do this would be to require their use in new construction and renovation.

    At first, the industry might struggle to meet this demand. But that would create clear incentives for new players here or overseas to meet the demand.

    Government support could help window manufacturers upgrade machinery and processes to be able to meet new demand.

    Subsidies could help offset the costs to households, if designed to sunset after a set period. Any subsidies should target groups such as vulnerable older Australians affected by energy poverty as well as renters on low incomes.

    Making this a reality is doable. After all, New Zealand did exactly this. In 2007, policymakers introduced new minimum performance requirements for windows. It took about four years to shift the market from single-glazed to predominantly double-glazed. Australia could do the same.

    Trivess Moore has received funding from various organisations including the Australian Research Council, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Victorian government and various industry partners. He is a trustee of the Fuel Poverty Research Network.

    Lisa de Kleyn received funding from Sustainability Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3000, for a short-term research project on the high performance window industry in 2023.

    Ralph Horne has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the Victorian government to support research related to this topic.

    Tom Simko 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. Cheap overseas, ruinous in Australia: here’s how to make double-glazed windows the norm – https://theconversation.com/cheap-overseas-ruinous-in-australia-heres-how-to-make-double-glazed-windows-the-norm-250280

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The Premier League champions have already been crowned but there’s still a lot on the line – mainly money

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ronnie Das, Associate Professor in Data Analytics, The University of Western Australia

    The English Premier League (EPL) is one of the most prestigious and widely consumed soccer competitions in the world.

    Yet it is also manifestly lopsided when it comes to competitive balance. Only a handful of teams are title contenders each season.

    The rest mainly aim to avoid relegation to the second-tier Championship, or strive to qualify for lucrative Europe-wide competitions that run alongside the domestic season.

    Despite the dominance of a handful of teams, and this year’s title race already being decided in Liverpool’s favour, there is still major fan interest, even among neutrals.

    The reason why is prestige and the financial windfalls for the teams that qualify for European leagues.

    Soccer’s uneven playing field

    Competitiveness in the Premier League has significantly declined since 1997 due to growing overseas investments.

    Super-wealthy investors such as Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour have permanently changed the fortunes of Chelsea and Manchester City, respectively. Since foreign acquisitions, these clubs experienced meteoric rises and dominated the league, and in Manchester City’s case, have enjoyed a near-monopoly on the league title in recent years.

    Superior financial backing provides unfair advantages in the player transfer market, wage affordability, and modernising training facilities that domestically funded clubs can’t match.

    This is probably a major reason why in 33 years of the EPL’s existence, there have only ever been seven different winners.

    This isn’t a unique feature of the English competition.

    Among the major European leagues, Barcelona and Real Madrid have combined 18 Spanish La Liga titles since 2004, Bayern Munich has won 15 German Bundesliga championships, and in Italy’s Serie A, Juventus (nine), Inter Milan (seven) and AC Milan (two) have shared the vast majority of titles over the past two decades.

    This is an illustration of what economists call industrial concentration – market domination by a small number of organisations.

    Normally, a fundamental principle when designing a sports league is the idea that every team should have a chance of winning it.

    In US sports, such as the National Basketball Association, this is enshrined within the sport’s rules and governance.

    One can argue it has been a long time since there was any such equality in English football.

    Despite the criticism, there is still major interest in the Premier League, due mainly to the jostling for European qualification.

    Why it’s not all about the title

    Liverpool and its fans are still celebrating their title win, which they clinched with four games to spare. The victory, the club’s 20th in top-tier English soccer, equals their arch-rival Manchester United’s record.

    The league’s often thrilling relegation battle has also already been decided.

    But interest in the league’s final few games is still high because many clubs are jostling for European qualification.

    These European-wide competitions are, in descending order of prestige, the Champions League, Europa League and the recently launched Conference League.

    Organised by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), these competitions bring together the top teams from each major European soccer league to compete against each other.

    This year, the top five English clubs (instead of the usual top four) will be offered a confirmed Champions League position. This is due to the collective best performance of English clubs this season in the Champions League.

    At the time of writing, there is only a seven-point spread between the six teams still vying for a top-five finish, with three games left to play.

    The sixth team in the league table, and the FA Cup winner, also receives the opportunity to join Europe’s second-tier club league tournament, the Europa League.

    And the Carabao Cup winner secures a spot in the third-tier Conference League.

    With Newcastle United (Carabao Cup winner) and Manchester City (favourite for FA Cup final) likely to finish in the top five Premier League places, the race for Europe is getting more intense with mathematical permutations suggesting up to ten Premier League places may be open to European league qualification.

    This means 12 EPL teams are still fighting for every single point.

    European qualification delivers enormous financial incentives. For many of the smaller competing clubs, such as Bournemouth, Nottingham Forest and Fulham, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

    Money matters

    Champions League qualification offers the largest financial rewards, with a €2.467 billion prize pool (A$4.34 billion), and minimum €18.62 million (A$32.7 million) reward per club for participation.

    Each victory during the tournament’s league stage also attracts a further €2.1 million (A$3.69 million) performance bonus, and bonuses for qualifying for the knockout stage range from €1 million to €18.5 million (A$1.75 million to $32.4 million) per club, depending on how far they progress.

    For Europa League participation, the reward is €4.31 million (A$7.57 million) per team, and €3.17 million (A$5.57 million) for the Conference League.

    This money is vital for clubs’ survival, especially as player wages and the transfer market have skyrocketed in recent years.

    For example, Manchester City’s Erling Haaland, the highest-paid Premier League player, earns £500,000 (A$1.028 million) per week.

    So, having the financial means to purchase top-quality players and sustain a strong team is becoming incredibly difficult for clubs with limited investments and earnings.

    For smaller clubs, qualifying for European competition can be a lifeline, which is why there’s still so much interest in the Premier League’s upper mid-table battles – despite Liverpool already being a week into the title celebrations.

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

    – ref. The Premier League champions have already been crowned but there’s still a lot on the line – mainly money – https://theconversation.com/the-premier-league-champions-have-already-been-crowned-but-theres-still-a-lot-on-the-line-mainly-money-254700

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: More than 50 years after trying to reach Venus, a failed Soviet spacecraft is about to return to Earth

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alice Gorman, Associate Professor in Archaeology and Space Studies, Flinders University

    A postage stamp from the Soviet Union celebrating its Venus space program from the 1960s and 1970s. Soviet Union/Wikipedia

    During the height of the Cold War in the 1960s and 1970s, the USSR launched 29 spacecraft towards Venus, the planet scientists call Earth’s “twin sister”.

    Three flew past Venus, and went into orbit around the Sun. Sixteen orbited or landed on Venus, where they experienced a climate often described as “hellish”.

    Ten got stuck in Earth orbit. All of them re-entered Earth’s atmosphere the same year they were launched – except Kosmos 482, which has stayed aloft for 53 more years. As the last remnant of the Soviet Venus program left in Earth orbit, it’s not your average piece of space junk.

    Because it was designed to withstand Venusian conditions, many think the lander may make planetfall on Earth instead of incinerating in the atmosphere. And that is expected to happen this week.

    Destination Morning Star

    Venus was a target of interest because its thick clouds might be hiding life on the surface. But the spacecraft were also Cold War weapons aimed at demonstrating the superiority of socialist science.

    Venera 1 was launched in 1961, only four years after Sputnik 1, the first satellite. Venera 7, in 1970, was the first spacecraft to successfully soft-land instead of crashing on a planet. Vega 2 was the last USSR Venus mission in 1984.

    The Venera probes were launched in pairs, a few days apart. If one failed, the other might succeed. Venera 8 was launched on March 27 1972 and reached Venus 117 days later. On March 31, its twin left Earth but failed to escape Earth orbit, earning the designation Kosmos 482.

    Venera 8 (pictured here) was identical to Kosmos 482 and made it to Venus.
    Lavochkin/Roscosmos/Wikipedia

    The spacecraft comprised a delivery “bus” about 3.5 metres tall, with a propulsion system, solar panels and a mesh dish antenna at one end, and the spherical landing craft at the other end. The landers had their own refrigeration system to cool them down and a heat shield to protect them. If all went to plan, the buses would eject the landers from orbit. The landers would hit the upper cloud decks at a speed of nearly 12km per second.

    At 60km altitude, the main parachute was released to float the lander down to the surface. A range of instruments would then measure the temperature, pressure, wind speed, visibility, atmospheric gases and rock composition, and radio the results back to Earth. Each lander carried a USSR medallion inside.

    But all didn’t go to plan. Venera 8 sped on its way to Venus, sending its lander down on July 22.

    Fate had something different in store for Kosmos 482.

    How to be space junk in one easy step

    The upper rocket stage that was meant to propel the Kosmos 482 bus out of Earth orbit shut off too early because the timer wasn’t set correctly. The rocket stage fell back to Earth and burnt up, while titanium pressure vessels from its fuel system fell onto fields in Aotearoa New Zealand.

    The bus and landing craft came apart in mid-June and the bus fell back into the atmosphere in 1981. The 465kg lander continued its orbit alone.

    At its farthest, the lander was 9,000km away, coming as close as 210km in its highly elliptical orbit around Earth. Over 50 years, that orbit has lowered to only 2,000km at its farthest point. Now the atmosphere is dragging it back towards Earth with a predicted re-entry of May 10. You can get updates on Kosmos 482’s position here.

    Venera 9 took the first images of the surface in 1975. The Venera 13 and 14 missions took the first colour photos.

    Will the lander fall on Earth?

    The lander had a titanium body designed to withstand Venus surface conditions of 90 times the atmospheric pressure of Earth and 470°C. After more than 50 years it won’t have the refrigeration, the capacity to aerobrake or a working parachute to slow it down and keep it cool. Its reentry will be uncontrolled.

    Typically, space junk reenters at around seven kilometres per second and can reach temperatures of 1,600°C as it tears through the atmosphere. Titanium alloys have a melting point of around 1,700°C. This is why the so-called “space balls” that landed in New Zealand in April 1972 survived reentry. If they did, then the lander could as well.

    Six of the nine other failed Kosmos reentries had landers or impactors, but we don’t know where they are – either they did not survive, fell into the ocean, or have not yet been found on land. This may also be the fate of the Kosmos 482 lander.

    The Kosmos 482 lander filmed from Leiden in 2020 by space tracking expert Marco Langbroek (Delft Technical University)

    Danger from Venus

    Venus might be the planet of love, but in popular culture, it has been associated with danger.

    In the 1960 East German film The Silent Star (later dubbed into English as First Spaceship on Venus), the Venusians plan to bombard Earth with radiation so they can conquer it.

    In the 1968 film Night of the Living Dead, an American Venus probe returns bringing a deadly radiation which turns the dead into zombies.

    An episode of the hit 1970s TV series The Six Million Dollar Man characterised a Russian Venus spacecraft as a “death probe” when it accidentally returned to Earth.

    These representations reflect Cold War fears of nuclear war and war waged from space.

    In the 21st century, we have a new source of anxiety: the environmental impacts of space junk. But spacecraft such as Kosmos 482 are not the junk people should be worried about.

    In the past five years, there’s been a massive increase in the number of rocket launches and the number of spacecraft in low Earth orbit. More and more space junk is reentering the atmosphere. For example, it’s estimated that a Starlink satellite reenters almost every day. When it burns up, it leaves behind damaging chemicals and soot particles.

    In the meantime, Venera 8 is still waiting silently on the surface of Venus for its twin to arrive.

    Alice Gorman is an expert member of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) International Scientific Committee on Aerospace Heritage and a Fellow of the Outer Space Institute.

    – ref. More than 50 years after trying to reach Venus, a failed Soviet spacecraft is about to return to Earth – https://theconversation.com/more-than-50-years-after-trying-to-reach-venus-a-failed-soviet-spacecraft-is-about-to-return-to-earth-255836

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: For 100 years, we have marvelled at planetariums. Here’s a brief history of how humans brought the stars indoors

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Bush, Senior Lecturer in History and Philosophy of Science, The University of Melbourne

    Ulverstone Planetarium, Hive Tasmania

    Picture this: a small audience is quietly ushered into a darkened room. They gasp in awe, as a brilliant night sky shines above. They wonder – as many after them will do – what trickery has made the roof above their heads disappear?

    But this is a performance; the stars above an ingenious projection. For the first time a public audience has experienced the spectacle of the opto-mechanical planetarium. The location is the newly opened Deutsches Museum in Munich, built to celebrate science and technology. The date is May 7 1925.

    Visualising the heavens

    Throughout time, cultures around the world have used the stars to help make sense of the world, to understand where we come from and determine our place in the cosmos.

    People have tried to recreate the movements of the stars and planets since antiquity. In the 1700s, the orrery, a clockwork model of the Solar System, was developed. The word “planetarium” was invented to describe orreries that featured the planets.

    One room-sized orrery example was built by the self-taught Frisian astronomer Eise Eisinga. It’s still operational today in Franeker, Netherlands.

    No human has ever been to the edge of the Solar System to see this view. Orreries, and other mechanical models of the universe like celestial globes, present views from impossible, external perspectives.

    Eise Eisinga’s orrery was constructed on a scale of 1mm:1 million km with the pendulum clock that drives the mechanism located in the ceiling above.
    Erik Zachte, CC BY-SA

    The first planetariums

    The desire for a realistic view of the stars and planets, created from a perspective we actually see, gathered pace in the early 20th century as light pollution from growing cities diminished the view of the night sky.

    People like Oskar von Miller, first director of the Deutsches Museum in Munich, Germany, wanted to return this vision of the stars and planets to everyone. (Ironically, von Miller’s earlier career was as an electrical engineer, rolling out the city lighting that contributed to light pollution.)

    One early attempt to create this view of the night sky was the Atwood Sphere, installed in Chicago in 1913.

    Approximately five metres across, it was made of sheet metal perforated with a star map. When viewed from the inside, the light shining through 692 pinholes replicated the Chicago night sky. The whole structure could even be rotated to simulate the motion of the stars.

    A realistic display of the stars is one thing. Representing the planets, whose positions in the sky change from night to night, is a different one. Von Miller and others at the Deutsches Museum knew that fixed holes could not represent the complexity of a moving planet.

    What if the planets were displayed by projection? If so, couldn’t the stars be projected, as well? With this realisation, a new kind of planetarium was born, borrowing the name from earlier orreries but working in a completely different way.

    The task of building such a device was given to the German optical company Carl Zeiss AG. After many setbacks, their first planetarium projector was completed in 1923, with the first performance at the Deutsches Museum a century ago today.

    Planetariums were a hit with the public. Within decades, they had spread around the world – the first planetarium in the United States opened in Chicago in 1930, while the first one in Asia opened in Osaka, Japan in 1937. The popularity of planetariums particularly accelerated in the US during the space race of the 1960s.

    Australia’s oldest operating planetarium is the Melbourne Planetarium, managed by Museums Victoria since 1965. In Aotearoa New Zealand, Auckland’s Stardome Observatory has been in operation since 1997. The current longest-running planetarium in the southern hemisphere is in Montevideo, Uruguay, operational since 1955.

    Changing pace of technology

    The opto-mechanical planetarium projector remains a technological wonder of the modern world. Individual plates, perforated with pinholes, are illuminated by a bright central light. Separate lenses focus each projection from one of these star maps to fill the entire dome with about 5,000 stars.

    The Sun, Moon and planets have separate projectors driven by gears and rods that mechanically calculate the object’s position in the sky for any time or place.

    The Zeiss ZKP-1 star projector was installed at Adelaide Planetarium in 1972.
    Adelaide Planetarium

    By the 1990s, a digital revolution had begun. With the advent of computers, the positions of the planets could now be calculated digitally. The Melbourne Planetarium became the first digital planetarium in the southern hemisphere when it installed the Digistar II in 1999.

    This system, developed by computer graphics company Evans and Sutherland, replaced the multiple lenses of earlier projectors with a fisheye lens. A single beam of light swept across the whole dome so rapidly that it seemed to create a single image – albeit in a bizarre green colour, rendering a starfield of fuzzy green blobs.

    The first accurate fly-through of a star field was created by Evans and Sutherland and used as the opening credits of Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan (1982).

    The trade-off for a less crisp starfield was a 3D database with more than 9,000 stars. For the first time, planetarium audiences could fly through space, far beyond the edge of the Solar System.

    Planetarium technology continues to develop. Today, most planetariums operate through video projection. Known as fulldome, the output from multiple projectors is blended together to create a seamless video, transforming the planetarium into a sophisticated 360-degree theatre.

    A still fulldome frame from Melbourne Planetarium’s production Moonbase One, released in 2018.
    Museums Victoria

    A gateway to the stars

    Astronomy has also changed over the last century. Just as Zeiss was completing its first projector, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that other galaxies exist beyond our Milky Way galaxy.

    The stars shown on the dome in Munich in 1925 turned out to be just a tiny part of the universe that we know today.

    Planetariums’ digital systems now incorporate data from telescopes and space agencies around the world. Audiences can fly off Earth, orbit the planets and moons of the Solar System, and explore the billions of known galaxies.

    In the planetarium, data from the GAIA spacecraft shows the little Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy dropping stars like breadcrumbs as it orbits the Milky Way.
    Museums Victoria, CC BY-SA

    Yet some things have not changed. From orreries and lantern slides to opto-mechanical and digital planetariums, the communication of astronomy has always been about more than just the latest results of science.

    The power of the planetarium over the last 100 years has been its ability to evoke wonder and awe. It taps into our enduring fascination with the vast mystery of the night sky.

    Tanya Hill works at the Melbourne Planetarium operated by Museums Victoria.

    Martin Bush 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. For 100 years, we have marvelled at planetariums. Here’s a brief history of how humans brought the stars indoors – https://theconversation.com/for-100-years-we-have-marvelled-at-planetariums-heres-a-brief-history-of-how-humans-brought-the-stars-indoors-255228

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Greens leader Adam Bandt and Teal Zoe Daniel likely to lose their seats

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    With 80% of enrolled voters counted, the ABC is giving Labor 87 of the 150 House of Representatives seats, the Coalition 40, the Greens zero and all Others ten, with 13 seats remaining undecided.

    Based on votes realigned to a Greens vs Labor two candidate count in Melbourne, the ABC has Greens leader Adam Bandt trailing Labor by almost 4,400 votes (52.9–47.1). This would be a 9.4% swing to Labor from the Greens since the 2022 election. Analyst Kevin Bonham agrees with the ABC’s estimate. Primary votes are 40.3% Bandt (down 4.4%), 31.5% Labor (up 5.8%) and 19.1% Liberals (down 0.5%).

    Bandt had won Melbourne by 60.2–39.8 against Labor at the 2022 election, but his margin was reduced to 56.5–43.5 by an unfavourable redistribution. Bandt has become hated by the right, so it’s natural that their preferences would go to Labor ahead of Bandt.

    If this result is confirmed, the Greens will have lost three of their four House seats. In the fourth seat (Ryan), The Poll Bludger’s projections have the Greens just ahead of Labor when one of these parties is excluded, so they will probably beat the Liberal National Party on Labor preferences.

    Despite these losses, the Greens overall vote has held up, down 0.5% to 11.8%. It’s likely the Greens will improve when absent votes start being counted; these votes were cast outside a voter’s home electorate.

    The problem for the Greens is that their vote has become too dispersed and not concentrated enough to win single-member seats. In the proportional Senate, the Greens have performed far better, holding all their six seats that were last elected in 2019 (one from each state).

    Liberal Tim Wilson gains Goldstein

    The ABC has called a Liberal gain in Goldstein, with Teal independent incumbent Zoe Daniel defeated by a current margin of 684 votes. Daniel won on ordinary votes, which include election day and pre-poll votes cast within Goldstein, by 51.8–48.2. But the nearly 14,000 postals counted so far have favoured Wilson by a huge 64–36, and there’s still at least 6,000 postals to be counted.

    In other close Teal vs Liberal contests, an amendment to a pre-poll booth hurt the Teal in Liberal-held Bradfield, and she now trails by 178 votes. Postals that have heavily favoured the Liberal are almost finished, and the Teal may be able to regain the lead on other vote types.

    In Kooyong, incumbent Teal Monique Ryan leads the Liberals by 622 votes. Ryan won ordinary votes by 52.3–47.7, but she’s losing the 14,000 postals counted so far by 62–38, and there’s still at least 6,500 postals to be counted.

    Other close seats

    The electoral commission is still realigning the two candidate count in Bendigo, Bean and Fremantle. he ABC estimates Labor has an 1,183 vote lead over the Nationals in Bendigo, a 355 vote lead over a Teal independent in Fremantle, but Labor trails a Teal independent in Bean by 943 votes.

    In Liberal-held Menzies, Labor leads by almost 1,400 votes and should win, as the Liberal-favouring postals are nearly finished. In Labor-held Bullwinkel, Labor leads the Liberals by 50 votes and should extend their lead once vote types other than postals start being counted. In LNP-held Longman, the LNP leads Labor by 439 votes, but postals are nearly finished and Labor may regain the lead on other vote types.

    Adrian Beaumont 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. Greens leader Adam Bandt and Teal Zoe Daniel likely to lose their seats – https://theconversation.com/greens-leader-adam-bandt-and-teal-zoe-daniel-likely-to-lose-their-seats-256067

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How having no pants in public went from a nightmare to the Met Gala’s hottest fashion trend

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jye Marshall, Lecturer, Fashion Design, School of Design and Architecture, Swinburne University of Technology

    While the official theme of the 2025 Met Gala was Superfine: Tailoring Black Style, another trend emerged among those on the red carpet: no pants.

    While many might shudder at the thought of wearing their underwear in public, the no-pants trend has picked up steam in recent years, with celebrities such as Kristen Stewart, Kendall Jenner, Bella Hadid, Sydney Sweeney and many more rocking the look.

    Lisa’s outfit confuses the internet

    Pop singer Sabrina Carpenter and K-pop star Lisa in particular rocked the internet with their pantless outfits at the Met Gala – although the latter has stirred up some controversy.

    Social media users were offended by Lisa’s underwear – part of a lacy bodysuit designed by Louis Vuitton – which seems to have an image of civil rights activist Rosa Parks embroidered onto it (although this hasn’t been confirmed), along with a number of other figures.

    It’s possible the look wouldn’t seem quite as offensive if the rest of the bodysuit wasn’t concealed by the blazer. Nonetheless, it’s a less successful attempt at marrying the gala’s theme of Black dandyism with one of the hottest trends in fashion right now.

    But where exactly does the no-pants trend come from? Is it as “new” as it seems? And do we have Bridget Jones herself to thank?

    The modern revival of no pants

    The revival of no pants, or mini shorts, marks a shift towards individualism in fashion, and is possibly also leveraging shock value. We’ve seen the trend slowly reemerge since 2022, with celebrity outfits and a series of runway adoptions.

    The latest runways have continued to deliver collections with hot pants, mini shorts and simply no pants, including Miu Miu Spring 2024 RTW, Alexander Wang Spring 2025 RTW and Louis Vuitton Spring 2025.

    The body positive movement may also be a factor in the way celebrities are expressing themselves. The no-pants trend is a moment to celebrate the legs. It’s also particularly useful for people who are shorter, as it creates the illusion of longer legs by pulling the focus to the torso.

    Sabrina Carpenter told Vogue she was specifically advised by Pharrell Williams – Louis Vuitton’s men’s creative director – to not wear pants at the Met Gala due to her short stature.

    Back to the origins

    While fashion is often seen as frivolous, the way we dress is actually closely linked with cultural, economic and political movements.

    Pants for women have a long and complex history. Before the mid-19th century, it was considered unacceptable for women in Western societies to wear bloomers (pants), as this was seen as a threat to male power.

    This 1896 satirical cartoon by William H. Walker (1871-1938) shows a navy ship crewed by women.
    untitled; William H. Walker Cartoon Collection, MC068, Public Policy Papers, Department of Special Collections, Princeton University Library

    The taboo continued up until the early 19th century, with one 1903 men’s magazine presenting a special issue of “bifurcated girls” – that is, women posing in trousers.

    And it was only in 2013 that France officially overturned a 200-year-old (unenforced) ban that said women could only wear trousers with permission from the police.

    If the no-pants trend seems overtly or subtly transgressive, it is because of the centuries women have spent trying to negotiate how much they can show of their bodies.

    Exoticism also has a big role to play in the way women adopted trends to expose their body. In the past, each time women revealed parts of their body they weren’t “supposed to”, they’ve been met with public shock.

    As for the no-pants trend, we can probably trace the first contemporary examples of this back to the rise of ballet clothing and dancewear, particularly the leotard, from the 1950s onward.

    The workout videos of the 1980s (hello, Jane Fonda) also boosted the popularity of the look.

    The fashion life cycle

    For women, pants provided practicality and freedom of movement, which was especially important as they took on men’s roles during the first and second world wars. So it’s no surprise womens’ pants became a fashion mainstay.

    Other trends, such as going pantless, will usually come into mainstream fashion in one of two ways. Either they trickle down from runways and celebrities, or bubble up from street style or social media.

    Trend cycles begin with “innovators” and “early adopters” – the bold among us who are ready to take the risk before others. Research into fashion trends suggests about 1% to 2.5% of the population are innovators who will adopt a style before it gains traction among the public.

    Trends will generally die when they hit a point of saturation and people become tired of them. While a trend that’s closer to classic fashion may last ten years, fashion “fads” tend to fizzle out after about one to two years.

    Given the Met Gala appearances, I think the no-pants look will be sticking around for at least another year. We can also expect it to dilute as it trickles down into mainstream fashion, which means we might see more mini shorts in stores instead.

    Jye Marshall is a member of the Australian Fashion Council and Ethical Clothing Australia Accreditation.

    – ref. How having no pants in public went from a nightmare to the Met Gala’s hottest fashion trend – https://theconversation.com/how-having-no-pants-in-public-went-from-a-nightmare-to-the-met-galas-hottest-fashion-trend-255952

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Labor has promised fast action to cut student debt, but arts students will have to wait for lower fees

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy, Monash University

    Labor’s federal election win means university fees and costs are set to change. But some of these changes will not be immediate.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has already said planned cuts to student debt will be a top priority for the the new parliament. A new student debt repayment system will follow soon after.

    But humanities students paying nearly A$17,000 a year for their studies – thanks to the Job-ready Graduates scheme introduced by the Morrison government – will probably have to wait until 2027 for lower fees.

    Reduction in student debt

    People with student debt will benefit from a 20% cut to how much they owe. As the Greens support wiping student debt entirely, Labor is likely to only need one or two other senators to pass the cut.

    With more Labor senators elected, Labor will be less reliant on crossbenchers to get legislation through parliament.

    Labor says the debt reduction will apply before 3.2% indexation is applied to HELP loan balances on June 1 this year. Given this deadline is mere weeks away, the necessary legislation will probably need to be retrospective.

    On average, the 20% reduction will save Australia’s 3 million student debtors about $5,500 each.

    A new student debt repayment system

    Another promised Labor change will deliver quick cash benefits to the about 1.2 million people making compulsory student debt repayments.

    If the Senate agrees, for the 2025-26 financial year, the income threshold to start repaying student loans will increase from $56,156 to $67,000. Anyone earning less than $67,000 in 2025-26 will repay nothing that financial year, compared to between $561 and $1,340 under current settings.

    Once the $67,000 income threshold is reached, student debtors will repay 15% of their income above this amount up to an income of $125,000, when the rate moves up to 17%. For example, a person earning $68,000 will be $1,000 above the new threshold – 15% of $1,000 equals a repayment of $150. Under the current system, somebody earning $68,000 would repay $1,360.

    Employers will deduct lower HELP repayments from their payroll, delivering extra cash to student debtor employees. Given the limited time before the thresholds are scheduled to change on July 1, employers may start with the old repayment system and transition to the new one after the necessary legislation passes.

    Understand the fine print

    During the election campaign, the Parliamentary Budget Office released work it did on HELP repayment scenarios for independent ACT Senator David Pocock, who was reelected on Saturday.

    This showed how under Labor’s proposed system, people with student debt will take longer to repay and incur higher indexation costs. If student debtors are concerned about this they can make voluntary repayments.

    What happens to the Job-ready Graduates scheme?

    A key to reducing repayment times is students accruing less debt in the first place. The Morrison government’s Job-ready Graduates policy increased student contributions for business, law and most arts subjects. Currently they pay $16,992 a year for their studies.

    The Coalition introduced this change in 2022 in a bid to encourage more university students to study “job-ready” teaching, nursing and STEM subjects.

    A new Australian Tertiary Education Commission, which Labor plans to legislate in the second half of 2025, will review student contribution levels as part of its broader role in managing the domestic student funding system.

    Last year, the Australian Universities Accord final report recommended student contributions should no longer be designed to steer course choices. Instead they should be based on expected future earnings.

    Using this principle, humanities students would pay the cheapest student contribution level. But this will not happen quickly.

    The new commission has a lot of work to do, with new student contributions forming part of a broader funding overhaul. The government then needs to accept any recommendations and legislate the new rates.

    Unfortunately for current students, this process means that student contributions are unlikely to change before 2027 at the earliest.

    International students

    While many domestic students are set to eventually pay less for their education, international students face early increases in costs. During the election campaign, Labor announced student visa application fees will increase from $1,600 to $2,000. As recently as June 2024 the visa application fee was only $710.

    This latest visa increase adds another item to an already long list of policies designed to discourage or block potential international students. It probably isn’t the last.

    Although student visa applications have trended down, the number of student visa holders in Australia at the end of March 2025 was higher than at the same time in 2023 or 2024.

    The government might try again to legislate formal caps on international student numbers. The Greens combined with the Liberals to block this in 2024.

    Commonwealth Prac Payments

    With Labor returned, eligible teaching, nursing and social work students will receive $331.65 a week when on mandatory work placements.

    While the “Commonwealth Prac Payments” policy is scheduled to start on July 1, the necessary legal instrument is not yet in place.

    Late in the election campaign the Coalition announced that, if elected, it would proceed with Prac Payments as a loan, rather than a grant.

    With the election result, Prac Payments can go ahead as originally planned. The minister can authorise the necessary delegated legislation before parliament sits. While the Senate could later “disallow” Prac Payments, the new Senate numbers make this very unlikely.

    Needs-based funding

    Labor’s election win should see another so far unlegislated program – needs-based funding for equity students – proceed as promised from January 1 2026.

    This will be a per student payment made to universities for each low socioeconomic status and First Nations student, along with each student enrolled at a regional campus. The idea is similar to needs-based funding for schools.

    Whether or not current education minister Jason Clare remains in the portfolio, Labor has a large higher education agenda to implement. In some areas the detail is already clear. But significant work remains to develop the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission and a new domestic student funding system.

    With several policy start dates due in the next eight weeks, the government will need to move quickly.

    Andrew Norton provided higher education policy advice to previous Liberal governments and served on the Universities Accord reference group during the first Albanese government.

    His current employer, Monash University, is significantly affected by policies on international students.

    – ref. Labor has promised fast action to cut student debt, but arts students will have to wait for lower fees – https://theconversation.com/labor-has-promised-fast-action-to-cut-student-debt-but-arts-students-will-have-to-wait-for-lower-fees-255872

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: In an election that played out on social media as much as TV, do leaders’ debates still matter?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Mills, Honorary Senior Lecturer, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney

    With the election campaign now fading into the rear-view mirror, the parties, particularly the Liberals, will be reviewing their campaign strategies. A part of this will likely be the use of televised debates.

    Leaders’ debates have been part of Australian election campaigns since 1984, but the 2025 campaign set a record of four televised exchanges between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

    The increased frequency, ever-evolving formats and fragmenting audiences of these televised campaign rituals do not guarantee improved voter information.

    Debates are idealised in international academic research as a “public service event”.

    But the evolution of Australian debates over four decades suggests voter education tends to be compromised by considerations of electoral strategy and network marketing.

    Risk versus reward

    Back in the 1980s, debates were a more stately affair – one-off events hosted by the National Press Club and carried by the national broadcaster.

    1984 Great Debate: Bob Hawke and Andrew Peacock.
    National Library of Australia29.9 MB (download)

    This year, all four of the Albanese–Dutton exchanges were conducted in-house by the rival television networks.

    In total, the four debates reached nearly six million viewers – though “reach” only measures “the total amount of people who dipped in for at least 60 seconds on linear TV, and 15 seconds on streaming”, according to media publication Mumbrella.

    Even allowing for party officials, election nerds and political scientists who watched more than one debate, these are still significant numbers, if lower than in decades past. The Australian electorate, it seems, is not yet entirely jaded about politics and politicians.

    Notably, squeezing four debates into a five-week campaign meant the last two took place with pre-polling under way.

    For the networks, hosting a debate presents an opportunity to showcase their stars, generate “exclusives” and maximise audiences. Their interest lies in mistakes or conflict, not policy rundowns.

    By contrast, for the Labor and Liberal campaign professionals, debates are primarily about risk minimisation. Debates are high-risk verbal combat: any gaffe, “gotcha” moment, forgotten statistic or ill-disciplined response in front of a live television audience carries a potentially high cost.

    So leaders spend valuable campaign hours preparing for debates, rehearsing their talking points, workshopping zingers, probing ways of exploiting the other’s weaknesses and responding to their taunts and challenges.

    They are structured such that they are not debates at all. There is no exchange, no rebuttal, no counterargument. For the most part, they resemble press conferences or studio interviews: formats in which the leaders are well practised and journalists are elevated to equal prominence with the political leaders.

    What’s the appeal?

    The principal motivation for both incumbent and challenger is that debates offer direct and protracted opportunities to articulate their key messages.

    In an era of fragmented audiences and shortened attention spans, each network promoted and gathered the viewers for them.

    Opening and closing statements in which the leaders outline their contrasting visions and policy themes operate like paid advertisements – but without the payment.

    The parties can then repackage the highlights into snackable short videos for social media, giving it a long tail. Both parties did this in this election.

    Indeed, debates are all about whose voice is heard in an election campaign. Leaders’ debates reinforce the dominance of the major parties. Labor and Liberal strategists alike resist any suggestion that they should share the debate platform with minor parties.

    But while it remains true that only the major party leaders have a chance of forming a new government, the new reality of Australian elections is that the majors rely heavily on preference flows from minor parties and independents, who thus have a legitimate claim to be heard on a debate stage.

    Perhaps those in the live TV audiences who judged neither Albanese nor Dutton as winners of the debates were not “undecideds”, but minor party supporters.

    Do debates shift votes?

    Previous research suggests debates tend to assist challengers more than incumbents. Opposition leaders have the additional advantage of standing on an equal footing with the prime minister.

    The exceptions generally occur when incumbents look likely to lose the election and want to gain ground against their challenger. Think Paul Keating in 1996, Kevin Rudd in 2013 and Scott Morrison in 2019, who all agreed to multiple debates.

    In 2025, Albanese joins that list, given his poor poll standings before the campaign began.

    It is not possible to measure what, if any, effect the four debates had on Albanese’s turnaround during the campaign. Voter effects are notoriously difficult to measure.

    The Australian Electoral Study has identified only modest effects in previous campaigns. Perhaps thanks to confirmation bias, debates are more likely to reinforce than change opinions.

    But the 2025 campaign may suggest something more. The campaign certainly saw significant shifts in opinion, including in perceptions of the two leaders. In Newspoll, Albanese surged as preferred prime minister, and as more likely to make Australians better off over the next three years.

    With hindsight, it seems clear that voters warmed to Albanese’s confidence, consistency and plans for the future, and cooled on Dutton’s policy-light focus on grievance.

    My hunch is the extended exposure of the leaders over four debates, right through the campaign and into the early voting period, provided some fuel for that change in perception.

    Stephen Mills was a staff member (1986-91) for Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke and since 2015 has volunteered for local Labor election campaigns.

    – ref. In an election that played out on social media as much as TV, do leaders’ debates still matter? – https://theconversation.com/in-an-election-that-played-out-on-social-media-as-much-as-tv-do-leaders-debates-still-matter-255771

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: COVID is still around and a risk to vulnerable people. What are the symptoms in 2025? And how long does it last?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meru Sheel, Associate Professor and Epidemiologist, Infectious Diseases, Immunisation and Emergencies (IDIE) Group, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

    Five years ago, COVID was all we could think about. Today, we’d rather forget about lockdowns, testing queues and social distancing. But the virus that sparked the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, is still circulating.

    Most people who get COVID today will experience only a mild illness. But some people are still at risk of severe illness and are more likely to be hospitalised with COVID. This includes older people, those who are immunocompromised by conditions such as cancer, and people with other health conditions such as diabetes.

    Outcomes also tend to be more severe in those who experience social inequities such as homelessness. In the United Kingdom, people living in the 20% most deprived areas have double chance of being hospitalised from infectious diseases than those in the least deprived areas.

    How many cases and hospitalisations?

    In Australia, 58,000 COVID cases have been reported so far in 2025. However, testing rates have declined and not all positive cases are reported to the government, so case numbers in the community are likely much higher.

    Latest data from FluCan, a network of 14 hospitals, found 781 people were hospitalised for COVID complications in the first three months of the year. This “sentinel surveillance” data gives a snapshot from a handful of hospitals, so the actual number of hospitalisations across Australia is expected to be much higher.

    While deaths are lower than previous years, 289 people died from COVID-related respiratory infections in the first two months of the year.

    What can we expect as we head into winter?

    We often see an increase in respiratory infections in winter.

    However, COVID peaks aren’t just necessarily seasonal. Over the past few years, peaks have tended to appear around every six months.

    What are the most common COVID symptoms?

    Typical early symptoms of COVID included fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose and shortness of breath. These have remained the most common COVID symptoms across the multiple variant waves.

    Early in the pandemic, we realised COVID caused a unique symptom called anosmia – the changed sense of taste or smell. Anosmia lasts about a week and in some cases can last longer.
    Anosmia was more frequently reported from infections due to the ancestral, Gamma, and Delta variants but not for the Omicron variant, which emerged in 2021.

    However, loss of smell still seems to be associated with some newer variants. A recent French study found anosmia was more frequently reported in people with JN.1.

    But the researchers didn’t find any differences for other COVID symptoms between older and newer variants.

    Should you bother doing a test?

    Yes. Testing is particularly important if you experience COVID-like symptoms or were recently exposed to someone with COVID and are at high-risk of severe COVID. You might require timely treatment.

    If you are at risk of severe COVID, you can see a doctor or visit a clinic with point-of-care testing services to access confirmatory PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing.

    Rapid antigen tests (RATs) approved by Australia’s regulator are also still available for personal use.

    But a negative RAT doesn’t mean that you don’t have COVID – especially if you are symptomatic.



    Read more:
    COVID-19 rapid tests still work against new variants – researchers keep ‘testing the tests,’ and they pass

    If you do test positive, while you don’t have to isolate, it’s best to stay at home.

    If you do leave the house while experiencing COVID symptoms, minimise the spread to others by wearing a well-fitted mask, avoiding public places such as hospitals and avoiding contact with those at higher risk of severe COVID.

    How long does COVID last these days?

    In most people with mild to moderate COVID, it can last 7–10 days.

    Symptomatic people can spread the infection to others from about 48 hours before you develop symptoms to about ten days after developing symptoms. Few people are infectious beyond that.

    But symptoms can persist in more severe cases for longer.

    A UK study which tracked the persistence of symptoms in 5,000 health-care workers found symptoms were less likely to last for more than 12 weeks in subsequent infections.

    General fatigue, for example, was reported in 17.3% of people after the first infection compared with 12.8% after the second infection and 10.8% following the third infection.

    Unvaccinated people also had more persistent symptoms.



    Read more:
    How long are you infectious when you have coronavirus?

    Vaccinated people who catch COVID tend to present with milder disease and recover faster. This may be because vaccination prevents over-activation of the innate immune response.

    Vaccination remains the best way to prevent COVID

    Vaccination against COVID continues to be one of the most effective ways to prevent COVID and protect against it. Data from Europe’s most recent winter, which is yet to be peer reviewed, reports COVID vaccines were 66% effective at preventing symptomatic, confirmed COVID cases.

    Most people in Australia have had at least one dose of the COVID vaccine. But if you haven’t, people over 18 years of age are recommended to have a COVID vaccine.

    Boosters are available for adults over 18 years of age. If you don’t have any underlying immune issues, you’re eligible to receive a funded dose every 12 months.

    Boosters are recommended for adults 65–74 years every 12 months and for those over 75 years every six months.

    Adults over 18 years who are at higher risk because of weaker immune systems are recommended to get a COVID vaccine every 12 months and are eligible every six months.

    Check your status and eligibility using this booster eligibility tool and you can access your vaccine history here.

    A new review of more than 4,300 studies found full vaccination before a SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of long COVID by 27% relative to no vaccination for the general adult population.

    With ongoing circulation of COVID, hybrid immunity from natural infection supplemented with booster vaccination can help prevent large-scale COVID waves.

    Meru Sheel receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. She serves on WHO’s Immunization and Vaccines Related Implementation Research Advisory Committee (IVIR-AC)

    – ref. COVID is still around and a risk to vulnerable people. What are the symptoms in 2025? And how long does it last? – https://theconversation.com/covid-is-still-around-and-a-risk-to-vulnerable-people-what-are-the-symptoms-in-2025-and-how-long-does-it-last-253840

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: 10 reasons why banning social media for New Zealanders under 16 is a bad idea – and will affect adults too

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Beattie, Lecturer, Media and Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    metamorworks/Getty Images

    Government coalition partners National and Act are at odds over proposed restrictions on social media use by New Zealanders aged 16 and under.

    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon recently announced a National Party private member’s bill that would require social media companies to verify someone is aged 16 or older. Luxon said social media was not “always a safe place for young people”.

    But ACT Party leader David Seymour has dismissed National’s proposal, saying it was “simple, neat and wrong”.

    Even if the member’s bill is not chosen out of the parliament biscuit tin, global interest in getting young people off social media is increasing.

    In late 2024, Australia passed a law banning children aged under 16 from social media platforms. Advocates, police and politicians in the United Kingdom, United States and elsewhere have all proposed similar laws.

    While there is merit in young people spending more time offline, and there are real concerns about the impact of social media on wider society, it’s not clear that outright prohibition will achieve what is hoped for. Here are ten reasons a blanket ban is not the answer.

    1. The addiction fallacy

    Lobby group Before 16 has compared social media to tobacco, saying the platforms should be treated as a public health harm. The implication is that young people could get addicted to social media.

    But the standard for diagnosing addiction is high. Most young people are not addicted to social media; they have a habitual relationship with it that is hard to change.

    Likewise, comparing digital experiences to food may not capture the full range of interactions and impacts. This often implies value judgements, suggesting online experiences are all about “dopamine hits” (similar to sweet treats) and inherently less valuable or “unhealthy” compared to offline experiences.

    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has introduced a members bill banning social media for people under 16 years old.
    Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    2. People are not ‘exposed to’ social media

    The language of the ban seems to suggest the relationship between social media and users goes in one direction – that people are simply exposed to the good and bad of platforms such as Facebook, TikTok and X. But using social media is not like going outside and getting burnt by the sun.

    While social media affects people, it’s also a tool we use to actively shape and create meaning for ourselves. It provides social scaffolding for day-to-day lives, identity formation, communication with family overseas, community support, and even a place to complain about parents.

    3. Murky science

    One of most influential books behind the ban is Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation. Haidt claims a causal link between social media use and increased anxiety and depression in Gen Z (those born between 1995 and 2012).

    But this claim is highly contentious and has been criticised for failing to consider other causes for the rise in anxiety in young people.

    At best, there may be a correlation between social media and poor mental health – they are happening at the same time. Young people are also grappling with the climate crisis, increasing inequality and global instability. These variables are difficult to isolate in a study, meaning social media becomes an easy target.

    4. A range of experiences

    Critics of social media also assume everyone has a negative experience online. And yes, if you tend to compare yourself to others on social media then you might end up feeling bad about your life.

    But not everyone thinks this way or uses social media to compare what they have (and don’t have) with others.

    5. The moral panic factor

    Moral panics can occur when emerging technologies challenge established social norms.

    Phenomena such as “phubbing” (using a phone to snub someone) challenge what is considered “socially acceptable” behaviour, triggering a deluge of think pieces about how they hurt society.

    While some skills may decline (such as reading and writing) with new technology, others like visual or oral storytelling practiced on social media are on the rise.

    Banning social media could mean young people miss out on valuable digital skills.

    ACT Party leader David Seymour has called the social media ban bill ‘simple, neat and wrong’.
    Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    6. Marginalised groups lose out

    Getting young people off social media might not be a big deal for kids who fit within their community. But if you are young, gay and live in a small town, for example, social media may provide the only space where you can feel safe or celebrated for who you are.

    Social media is also a key means for immigrants to stay in touch with their families and culture.

    7. Enforcement challenges

    There are also problems with how the ban is supposed to work – something Australia is still grappling with despite already passing a ban into law (which comes into effect at the end of this year).

    Policymakers have yet to explain how age verification technologies would work without giving away more personal data to media platforms. And everyone would have to verify their age, regardless of whether they are under 16 years old or not.

    8. Losing innovation

    Young people are savvier with technology than older generations. They lead with innovations such as FINSTA (fake Instagram) accounts – fake profiles that allow people to post more privately on Instagram without the pressure of conforming to expectations or judgement of people who know you.

    Blanket bans could hurt this technological adeptness and creativity and stop young people from teaching us how to navigate our online and offline lives.

    9. Learning how to disconnect

    Media literacy is also a crucial skill in today’s media saturated age. The skill of unplugging could become part of that curriculum.

    Temporarily going offline is an excellent way to make students aware of their relationship with social media. Schools could have media-free classes or courses to build awareness, encourage new habits and support students to develop new routines.

    10. Better options than a ban

    No one is arguing that social media hasn’t had a negative effect on individuals and society as a whole. But instead of a ban, why not work to improve the platforms?

    We could focus regulatory efforts on creating safer spaces, like we do with physical buildings.

    Overseas advocacy work on children’s digital rights shows how we can protect children from algorithms, gamification and other predatory tactics used by social media platforms, rather than introducing an outright ban.

    Alex Beattie receives funding from The Royal Society of New Zealand. He has previously won a Marsden Fast Start Grant.

    – ref. 10 reasons why banning social media for New Zealanders under 16 is a bad idea – and will affect adults too – https://theconversation.com/10-reasons-why-banning-social-media-for-new-zealanders-under-16-is-a-bad-idea-and-will-affect-adults-too-256065

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: India and Pakistan have fought many wars in the past. Are we on the precipice of a new one?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Hall, Professor of International Relations, Griffith University

    India conducted military strikes against Pakistan overnight, hitting numerous sites in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and deeper into Pakistan itself. Security officials say precision strike weapon systems, including drones, were used to carry out the strikes.

    Pakistan says at least eight civilians have been killed and many more injured.

    While there’s still much uncertainty around what’s happened, it is clear both sides are closer to a major conflict than they have been in years – perhaps decades.

    We’ve seen these kinds of crises before. India and Pakistan have fought full-scale wars many times over the years, in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999.

    There were also cross-border strikes between the two sides in 2016 and 2019 that did not lead to a larger war.

    These conflicts were limited because there was an understanding, given both sides possess nuclear weapons, that escalating to a full-scale war would be very dangerous. That imposed some control on both sides, or at least some caution.

    There was also external pressure from the United States and others on both occasions not to allow those conflicts to spiral out of control.

    While it’s possible both sides will exercise similar restraint now, there may be less pressure from other countries to compel them to do so.

    In this context, tensions can escalate quickly. And when they do, it’s difficult to get both sides to back down and return to where they were before.

    Why did India strike now?

    India says it was retaliating for a terror attack last month on mostly Indian tourists in heavily militarised Kashmir, which both sides claim. The attack left 26 dead.

    There was a claim of responsibility after the attack from a group called the Resistance Front, but it was subsequently withdrawn, so there’s some uncertainty about that.

    Indian sources suggest this group, which is relatively new, is an extension of a pre-existing militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has been based in Pakistan for many years.

    Pakistan has denied any involvement in the tourist attack. However, there’s been good evidence in the past suggesting that even if the Pakistani government hasn’t officially sanctioned these groups operating on its territory, there are parts of the Pakistani establishment or military that do support them. This could be ideologically, financially, or through other types of assistance.

    In previous terror attacks in India, weapons and other equipment have been sourced from Pakistan. In the Mumbai terror attack in 2008, for instance, the Indian government produced evidence it claimed showed the gunmen were being directed by handlers in Pakistan by phone.

    But as yet, we have no such evidence demonstrating Pakistan is connected to the tourist attack in Kashmir.

    India has also repeatedly asked Pakistan to shut down these groups. While the leaders have occasionally been put in jail, they’ve later been released, including the alleged mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attack.

    And madrassas (religious schools) that have long been accused of supplying recruits for militant groups are still permitted to operate in Pakistan, with little state control.

    Pakistan, meanwhile, claims that attacks in Kashmir are committed by local Kashmiris protesting against Indian “occupation” or Pakistanis spontaneously moved to take action.

    These two positions obviously don’t match up in any way, shape or form.

    A political cost to pay for not acting

    It remains to be seen what cost either side is willing to pay to escalate tensions further.

    From an economic standpoint, there’s very little cost to either side if a larger conflict breaks out. There’s practically no trade between India and Pakistan.

    New Delhi has likely calculated that its fast-growing economy will not be harmed by its strikes and others will continue to trade and invest in India. The conclusion of a trade deal with the United Kingdom, after three years of negotiations, will reinforce that impression. The deal was signed on May 6, just before the Pakistan strikes.

    And from the standpoint of international reputation, neither side has much to lose.

    In past crises, Western countries were quick to condemn and criticise military actions committed by either side. But these days, most take the view that the long-simmering conflict is a bilateral issue, which India and Pakistan need to settle themselves.

    The main concern for both sides, then, is the political cost they would suffer from not taking military action.

    Before the terrorist attack on April 22, the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had claimed the security situation in Kashmir was improving, and ordinary Indians could safely travel in the region. Those claims were undermined by what occurred that day, making it crucial for the government to respond.

    And now, if Pakistan doesn’t react to the Indian strikes, its government and especially its military would have a cost to pay, too.

    Despite a patchy record of success, Pakistan’s army has long justified its outsize role in national politics by claiming that it alone stands between the Pakistani people and Indian aggression. If it fails to act now, that claim might look hollow.

    Little external mediation to bank on

    So, how does this play out? The hope would be there’s limited military action, lasting a few days, and then things calm down rapidly, as they have in the past. But there are no guarantees.

    And there are few others willing to step in and help deescalate the dispute. US President Donald Trump is mired in other conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza and with the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and his administration’s diplomacy has so far been inept and ineffective.

    When asked about the Indian strike today, Trump replied it was a “shame” and he “hopes” it ends quickly.

    That’s very different from the strong rhetoric we’ve seen from US presidents in the past when India and Pakistan have come to blows.

    New Delhi and Islamabad will likely have to settle this round themselves. And for whoever decides to blink or back down first, there may be a substantial political cost to pay.

    Ian Hall receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He is also an honorary academic fellow of the Australia India Institute at the University of Melbourne.

    – ref. India and Pakistan have fought many wars in the past. Are we on the precipice of a new one? – https://theconversation.com/india-and-pakistan-have-fought-many-wars-in-the-past-are-we-on-the-precipice-of-a-new-one-256080

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Meta’s new AI chatbot is yet another tool for harvesting data to potentially sell you stuff

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Uri Gal, Professor in Business Information Systems, University of Sydney

    Tony Lam Hoang/Unsplash

    Last week, Meta – the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp – unveiled a new “personal artificial intelligence (AI)”.

    Powered by the Llama 4 language model, Meta AI is designed to assist, chat and engage in natural conversation. With its polished interface and fluid interactions, Meta AI might seem like just another entrant in the race to build smarter digital assistants.

    But beneath its inviting exterior lies a crucial distinction that transforms the chatbot into a sophisticated data harvesting tool.

    ‘Built to get to know you’

    “Meta AI is built to get to know you”, the company declared in its news announcement. Contrary to the friendly promise implied by the slogan, the reality is less reassuring.

    The Washington Post columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler found that by default, Meta AI “kept a copy of everything”, and it took some effort to delete the app’s memory. Meta responded that the app provides “transparency and control” throughout and is no different to their other apps.

    However, while competitors like Anthropic’s Claude operate on a subscription model that reflects a more careful approach to user privacy, Meta’s business model is firmly rooted in what it has always done best: collecting and monetising your personal data.

    This distinction creates a troubling paradox. Chatbots are rapidly becoming digital confidants with whom we share professional challenges, health concerns and emotional struggles.

    Recent research shows we are as likely to share intimate information with a chatbot as we are with fellow humans. The personal nature of these interactions makes them a gold mine for a company whose revenue depends on knowing everything about you.

    Consider this potential scenario: a recent university graduate confides in Meta AI about their struggle with anxiety during job interviews. Within days, their Instagram feed fills with advertisements for anxiety medications and self-help books – despite them having never publicly posted about these concerns.

    The cross-platform integration of Meta’s ecosystem of apps means your private conversations can seamlessly flow into their advertising machine to create user profiles with unprecedented detail and accuracy.

    This is not science fiction. Meta’s extensive history of data privacy scandals – from Cambridge Analytica to the revelation that Facebook tracks users across the internet without their knowledge – demonstrates the company’s consistent prioritisation of data collection over user privacy.

    What makes Meta AI particularly concerning is the depth and nature of what users might reveal in conversation compared to what they post publicly.

    Open to manipulation

    Rather than just a passive collector of information, a chatbot like Meta AI has the capability to become an active participant in manipulation. The implications extend beyond just seeing more relevant ads.

    Imagine mentioning to the chatbot that you are feeling tired today, only to have it respond with: “Have you tried Brand X energy drinks? I’ve heard they’re particularly effective for afternoon fatigue.” This seemingly helpful suggestion could actually be a product placement, delivered without any indication that it’s sponsored content.

    Such subtle nudges represent a new frontier in advertising that blurs the line between a helpful AI assistant and a corporate salesperson.

    Unlike overt ads, recommendations mentioned in conversation carry the weight of trusted advice. And that advice would come from what many users will increasingly view as a digital “friend”.

    A history of not prioritising safety

    Meta has demonstrated a willingness to prioritise growth over safety when releasing new technology features. Recent reports reveal internal concerns at Meta, where staff members warned that the company’s rush to popularise its chatbot had “crossed ethical lines” by allowing Meta AI to engage in explicit romantic role-play, even with test users who claimed to be underage.

    Such decisions reveal a reckless corporate culture, seemingly still driven by the original motto of moving fast and breaking things.

    Now, imagine those same values applied to an AI that knows your deepest insecurities, health concerns and personal challenges – all while having the ability to subtly influence your decisions through conversational manipulation.

    The potential for harm extends beyond individual consumers. While there’s no evidence that Meta AI is being used for manipulation, it has such capacity.

    For example, the chatbot could become a tool for pushing political content or shaping public discourse through the algorithmic amplification of certain viewpoints. Meta has played role in propagating misinformation in the past, and recently made the decision to discontinue fact-checking across its platforms.

    The risk of chatbot-driven manipulation is also increased now that AI safety regulations are being scaled back in the United States.

    Lack of privacy is a choice

    AI assistants are not inherently harmful. Other companies protect user privacy by choosing to generate revenue primarily through subscriptions rather than data harvesting. Responsible AI can and does exist without compromising user welfare for corporate profit.

    As AI becomes increasingly integrated into our daily lives, the choices companies make about business models and data practices will have profound implications.

    Meta’s decision to offer a free AI chatbot while reportedly lowering safety guardrails sets a low ethical standard. By embracing its advertising-based business model for something as intimate as an AI companion, Meta has created not just a product, but a surveillance system that can extract unprecedented levels of personal information.

    Before inviting Meta AI to become your digital confidant, consider the true cost of this “free” service. In an era where data has become the most valuable commodity, the price you pay might be far higher than you realise.

    As the old adage goes, if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product – and Meta’s new chatbot might be the most sophisticated product harvester yet created.

    When Meta AI says it is “built to get to know you”, we should take it at its word and proceed with appropriate caution.

    Uri Gal 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. Meta’s new AI chatbot is yet another tool for harvesting data to potentially sell you stuff – https://theconversation.com/metas-new-ai-chatbot-is-yet-another-tool-for-harvesting-data-to-potentially-sell-you-stuff-255966

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Labor says its second term will be about productivity reform. These ideas could help shift the dial

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roy Green, Emeritus Professor of Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

    Summit Art Creations/Shutterstock

    In his victory speech, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese highlighted social policy as a major factor in Labor’s electoral success, particularly Medicare, housing and cost of living relief. He was justified in doing so.

    But looking forward, Treasurer Jim Chalmers named stalled productivity growth as a top priority for the next three years:

    The best way to think about the difference between our first term and the second term …[is] the first term was primarily inflation without forgetting productivity, the second term will be primarily productivity without forgetting inflation.

    The government asked the Productivity Commission in December to develop five pillars of its productivity agenda and come up with actionable reforms. And for the first time, the commission went out and sought “productivity pitches” from anyone in the community.

    Ahead of further reports due out later this year, those community “pitches” offer some clues about where the Albanese government might start to tackle productivity over the next three years and beyond.

    Why does productivity matter?

    Essentially, productivity is about working smarter, not harder. It’s about efficiency and innovation driving more output for an economy or company. Growth in productivity has been the driver of real wage growth and improved living standards since the Industrial Revolution.

    However, productivity performance has slumped across most advanced economies. In Australia, growth is the slowest in 60 years. This is despite the transformative impact of the internet and digital technologies.

    Explanations of the productivity slowdown are many and varied. Some have suggested the growth of the care economy and the services sector more broadly means productivity is reduced. Others wonder whether it can be measured at all in this context.

    The explanation that has gained most acceptance is that productivity has increased dramatically in “frontier firms” at the cutting edge of technological change and business innovation. The problem in Australia is that we have too few frontier firms and too many “laggard” companies. The rate of new technology adoption is too slow.

    This problem is made more acute by Australia’s trade and industrial structure, which is heavily weighted to resources exports rather than the knowledge-based industries of the future.

    What is the Productivity Commission looking at?

    This is the rationale for the Treasurer’s request in December for the Productivity Commission to identify priority reforms in five key areas. He asked for “actionable recommendations to assist governments to make meaningful and measurable productivity-enhancing reforms”.

    The five pillars are:

    • creating a more dynamic and resilient economy
    • building a skilled and adaptable workforce
    • harnessing data and digital technology
    • delivering quality care more efficiently
    • investing in cheaper, cleaner energy and the net zero transformation.

    These are ambitious objectives, and the Productivity Commission is pursuing the review task in a different way from the past by seeking ideas directly from the community through crowd sourcing.

    This is a sensible move, especially given the commission’s role in presiding over Australia’s productivity decline. Perhaps they are finally learning from failed experiments in deregulation, privatisation and contracting out.

    The commission has published a selection of the 500 suggestions it received. These include research and development initatives; improving university collaboration with industry; improving management capabilities and building inclusive workplaces; and reforming skilled migration.

    In the technology area, suggestions included developing internal capability and processes in the public service; making more use of artificial intelligence; and improving digital infrastructure in regional areas.

    In the care economy, pharmacists could play an increased role, such as consulting on minor illnesses, while more could be invested in preventative health.

    The fifth area of focus, the energy transition, produced ideas on streamlining state and federal approval processes for net zero projects; increasing fossil fuel taxes; supporting electric vehicle uptake and vehicle-to-grid technology.

    The commission has said it plans to continue the consultation process and release interim reports mid-year.

    Will it be enough to shift the dial?

    The question remains, will these individual measures on their own, however meritorious, be sufficient to shift the dial on Australia’s productivity performance without a more comprehensive approach to innovation and industrial policy?

    The government set up a “strategic examination” of research and development (R&D) in February. An interim discussion paper found links between the decline of productivity growth, the decline of business spending on R&D, and the decline of manufacturing.

    In other words, reversing the productivity slowdown may not simply be a matter of boosting R&D. It will also require the revival and reinvention of manufacturing. It implies a complex sovereign capability and means for diversifying Australia’s export mix in global markets and value chains.

    This is the purpose of the government’s Future Made in Australia strategy, with its twin objectives of economic resilience and net zero transition. That success in turn depends on the development of a more effective and joined up research and innovation system.

    The chance was missed in the commodity boom to design and deliver overdue structural changes in the Australian economy. Instead, the productivity decline was masked by a terms-of-trade boost to our national income, thanks to higher commodity prices.

    The Albanese government’s second and possibly third term in office provides another opportunity to undertake the major structural changes required to secure Australia’s future as an inclusive and dynamic knowledge-based economy. Surely this one will not be missed.

    Roy Green 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. Labor says its second term will be about productivity reform. These ideas could help shift the dial – https://theconversation.com/labor-says-its-second-term-will-be-about-productivity-reform-these-ideas-could-help-shift-the-dial-255880

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How do you put a tariff on movies? Here’s what Trump’s plan could mean for Australia

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark David Ryan, Professor, Film, Screen, Animation, Queensland University of Technology

    Kirk Wester/Shutterstock

    US President Donald Trump’s recent announcement of a plan to impose a 100% tariff on movies “produced in foreign lands” could have a massive impact on the global entertainment industry.

    Film and television production is increasingly part of an interconnected global system. Hollywood’s major studios and global streaming giants use a diverse range of locations around the world, sometimes working across multiple countries for a single project.

    Doing so allows them to leverage production incentives and tax shelters offered by different countries, take advantage of exchange rates to lower their production costs, and more.

    They also film offshore, for example in China, as strategic co-productions and feature iconic locations and local actors to appeal to audiences in that specific national market.

    Many countries have become important hubs in this global system of production. Australia is a significant player. So, how exactly might Trump’s tariffs work? And why is so much Hollywood film made internationally in the first place?

    ‘Movies made in America’

    Trump made the announcement in a post on the social media network Truth Social. But his original statement is vague and lacks crucial detail.

    Based on his post, this proposal could include any foreign movie imported into the United States. More likely, though, it refers to US movies filmed (in part or wholly) overseas.

    Trump’s statement only singles out movies. He doesn’t mention television series for broadcasters, or specifically film and television programs made for streaming platforms.

    This suggests a focus on movies made by Hollywood studios. It may or may not include content made by streamers such as Netflix.

    Tariffs on tickets?

    Movies are a kind of intellectual property. They’re intangible products or services, not physical goods. If a tariff was applied to movies, they’d become the first service in the current trade war to receive one.

    So what tariffs or regulations could be applied?

    One option would be a levy on distributors releasing US movies made overseas. Another option would be to adapt the French TSA model, which levies a tax on all cinema tickets. In France, this money is reinvested into the local industry. The US could impose such a tax on tickets for films with production components overseas.

    Both options would pass the costs on to consumers. A drop in already fragile cinema attendance or revenues could simply cause studios to reduce the number of movies made for theatrical release.

    Studios might instead concentrate on making movies and television series for their own streaming platforms, such as Disney+ and Paramount+.

    One option could be to impose a tax directly on tickets for US cinemagoers.
    bbernard/Shutterstock

    Taxing production

    Could the tax be imposed in other ways? Many US studio movies, and television programs, are at least partly, if not wholly, filmed internationally. But they are still US-controlled movies and still dominate the box office in many countries worldwide.

    Could the revenue of Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024), filmed on the Gold Coast in Australia, specifically be targeted and taxed for being made overseas, in contrast to a Hollywood movie made completely at home?

    Would there be a sliding scale based on how much of a film is shot overseas? Would the tax apply to post-production or only production? The process of reviewing and enforcing this would be complex.

    Another option may be taxing the portion of a movie’s production budget obtained from foreign tax incentives.

    Major blockbusters filming in Australia are eligible for tax rebates and incentives, which can equate to almost half, or more, of the money they spend in Australia. But exactly how the US would review and regulate such a tax is again unclear.

    Many of the major film studios now have their own dedicated streaming platforms.
    Tada Images/Shutterstock

    Australia’s film industry

    International film and television production expenditure in Australia now averages A$880 million each year. International movies alone account for about half of that figure.

    And the number of movies and television series being filmed in Australia has increased dramatically since the outbreak of COVID.

    Production expenditure here on both local and international productions jumped from just over $1 billion in 2019–20 to about $2.4 billion in 2022–23.

    There are numerous reasons for this. Australia became a more popular international production hub after serving as a “production bubble” during the pandemic, as restrictions forced filming to shut down in many other countries. Relationships were forged between local producers, crews, film agencies and studios.

    The reputation of places like the Gold Coast, known for talented crews and stunning filming locations, has also played an important role in continually luring studios back.

    The biggest draw card

    But the major reason is the strong pull of Australia’s tax incentives for filming content here.

    In Australia, international film and television programs are eligible for a 30% “location offset” on eligible production expenditures. If a project qualifies, producers will receive a provisional certificate, and they can claim a fixed 30% rebate for expenses in an income tax return for the relevant year.

    There’s also a 30% offset on eligible post-production and visual effects work. And these incentives can be “stacked” on top of an extra 10–15% in incentives from state screen agencies (such as Screen QLD).

    Some combined federal and state-based production offsets amount to rebates of 50%, or more, of a project’s production spend in Australia.

    Why Australia is worried

    International productions, which are quite different to local film and television programs, generate employment for many local actors and technical professionals. The loss of this film production would dramatically reduce employment for local professionals.

    If these levies are imposed only on movies that screen theatrically, then television series and streaming films and series could continue to film in Australia unaffected. That would lessen the impact on local industries. If the definition includes both, the impact could be dramatic.

    Mark David Ryan has received funding from the Gold Coast Film Commission. He is affiliated with the National Institute of Dramatic Art (NIDA).

    – ref. How do you put a tariff on movies? Here’s what Trump’s plan could mean for Australia – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-put-a-tariff-on-movies-heres-what-trumps-plan-could-mean-for-australia-255948

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Can what you eat during pregnancy and breastfeeding affect whether your child develops food allergies?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Koplin, Evidence and Translation Lead, National Allergy Centre of Excellence; Chief Investigator, Centre of Food Allergy Research; Associate Professor and Group Leader, Childhood Allergy & Epidemiology Group, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland

    Maria Evseyeva/Shutterstock

    Many questions pop up when you’re growing or raising a new baby.

    Among them, women often wonder if what they eat during pregnancy or breastfeeding will affect whether or not their child will have a food allergy.

    Researchers have also been trying to answer this question for many years.

    A baby’s exposure to food allergens during pregnancy and via breast milk is thought to be important. Experts believe it could allow the child to start developing helpful immune responses so they tolerate food allergens in their diet in future.

    But to what degree this theory plays out, and whether a mother’s diet influences their child’s likelihood of developing food allergies, isn’t yet clear. Here’s what we know so far.

    The science of food allergies

    A food allergy occurs when the body’s immune system responds to a particular food as if it was harmful to the body.

    In Australia, foods which commonly cause allergies include egg, cow’s milk, peanut, tree nuts, sesame, soy, wheat, fish and other seafood (this can vary a little in different countries). Although almost any food can cause an allergic reaction.

    For people with food allergies, symptoms can appear within minutes of eating the food. These symptoms can include a swollen face, lips or eyes, hives or welts on the skin, vomiting, trouble breathing, and persistent dizziness or collapse.

    In pregnancy, food allergens can cross the placenta and can be detected in amniotic fluid, from which they reach the baby’s gastrointestinal tract when the baby swallows.

    After birth this process continues when food allergens pass from breast milk to the baby’s gastrointestinal tract. Both of these pathways lead to early life exposure to different foods.

    This is thought to help the baby’s developing immune system to accept food allergens when they’re introduced once the child starts eating solids. In other words, the immune system may be more likely to see the food as harmless and not mount an allergic response against the food.

    Babies can be exposed to allergens in breast milk before they start eating solid foods.
    Nastyaofly/Shutterstock

    Along with food allergens, babies also receive beneficial antibodies in breast milk. Levels of food allergen-specific antibodies, which could offer protection against allergies, have been found to be higher in babies whose mothers ate more of foods including egg, peanut, cow’s milk and wheat during early breastfeeding.

    Lower levels of these beneficial antibodies in the blood have been linked with higher chances of babies developing food allergies.

    Research is trying to answer the question

    While there are scientific explanations for how a woman’s diet during pregnancy and breastfeeding could influence her child’s likelihood of developing a food allergy, we don’t have conclusive evidence to tell us exactly what the best diet is to prevent allergies.

    Some studies have tried to look at this, but results have been inconsistent because they have been done in different populations, diet has been assessed in different ways, and they have not always been able to account for other factors that might influence both diet and food allergy risk.

    Current research is trying to understand this further. A large Australian study, the PrEggNut Study, is testing whether the amount of egg and peanut mothers eat during pregnancy and breastfeeding affects their child’s risk of having an egg or peanut allergy.

    More than 2,100 mothers were randomly assigned to eat either higher or lower amounts of egg and peanut from mid-pregnancy until their baby was four months old. Results are expected next year.

    Another Australian study, the Nuts For Babies Study, is testing whether the amount of peanuts and cashew nuts mothers eat during breastfeeding can reduce the chances of their child developing a peanut or cashew nut allergy.

    This study has recently commenced and is looking for 4,000 pregnant women living in Western Australia or Victoria and who are planning to breastfeed their baby to participate.

    Ongoing research is trying to tell us how a mother’s diet during pregnancy or breastfeeding could affect her child’s risk of food allergies.
    Andrea Piacquadio/Pexels

    So what’s the advice for now?

    There are many other things, such as genetic and environmental factors, that may also play a role in the development of a baby’s immune system, including how their immune cells respond to food allergens. And we still have a lot to learn about what causes allergies more broadly.

    While we wait for the results of the above studies, the current advice is for mothers not to avoid any common allergy-causing foods during pregnancy and breastfeeding (unless of course they’re allergic themselves).

    The science so far suggests that if anything, exposing the baby to allergens could reduce their risk of developing allergies, rather than increase it.

    Once the baby is ready to eat solid foods, we know introducing peanuts and eggs from around six months of age makes it less likely the child will develop an allergy to these foods.

    Introducing other common allergy-causing foods in the first year of life may also be helpful, although the evidence for this is not as strong compared with peanuts and eggs.

    Once these foods have been introduced, continuing to include them in your baby’s meals regularly, at least once a week, might also make it less likely they develop an allergy to these foods.

    Jennifer Koplin receives research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. She is a member of the Executive Committee for the National Allergy Centre of Excellence, which is supported by funding from the Australian government. She has received a research award from the Stallergenes Greer Foundation, paid to her institution, for unrelated research. She is a co-investigator on the PrEggNut study mentioned in this article.

    Debbie Palmer receives research project funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and is supported by a Stan Perron Charitable Foundation Fellowship. Debbie is the lead chief investigator of both the PrEggNut Study and Nuts For Babies Study. She is the food allergy stream co-chair of the National Allergy Centre of Excellence, which is supported by funding from the Australian government.

    Desalegn Markos Shifti is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council-funded Centre for Food and Allergy Research postdoctoral funding.

    – ref. Can what you eat during pregnancy and breastfeeding affect whether your child develops food allergies? – https://theconversation.com/can-what-you-eat-during-pregnancy-and-breastfeeding-affect-whether-your-child-develops-food-allergies-255114

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How maximum security prison inmates and officers worked together to create a farm behind bars

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Tietz, Senior Lecturer in Industrial Design, UNSW Sydney

    Macquarie Correctional Centre Media Unit

    At Macquarie Correctional Centre in western New South Wales, a story of collaboration and persistence is unfolding. Inmates and prison officers are farming commercial quantities of fresh food in a purpose-built indoor facility.

    One of the 400 male offenders in maximum security at Macquarie contacted me with the idea about five years ago, proposing it would form the basis of a PhD. I agreed to supervise the project.

    Inmates at Macquarie Correctional Centre are encouraged to further their education and follow their interests. The approach is modelled on the Scandinavian prison system, which has the world’s lowest re-offending rates.

    The project shows food gardening provides a meaningful activity for inmates, some of whom never had the opportunity to learn how to plant and grow produce.

    The M Farm produces fresh produce for the on site café.
    Macquarie Correctional Centre Media Unit

    Why farm indoors?

    The project involved farming indoors because the environment can be more carefully controlled. Being isolated from the weather means there’s no need to worry about extremes such as frosts or heatwaves.

    This type of “controlled environment agriculture” is also more efficient. It requires less resources than traditional agriculture, mainly because there are fewer losses due to pests and diseases.

    By controlling the amount of light, water and nutrients each plant receives, it’s possible to optimise the growing system – making it more like a plant factory than a standard greenhouse.

    Inside M Farm, in the early days.
    PhD student

    From vision to reality

    Inmates studying in prison don’t have internet access. Emails are printed out or relayed. If information needs to be viewed online it is under supervision of an authorised officer.

    Despite the challenges, the student published his first conference paper in 2021 and his first academic journal article in 2023. A second article followed in 2024. The student also submitted his PhD 2024.

    The project began with a research plan. Then the PhD student ran focus groups with officers and inmates in mixed groups. A series of one-on-one interviews followed.

    Officers and inmates co-designed and developed the indoor farming facility. One group of inmates, trained in the in-house design office, used 3D computer aided design (CAD) software to produce technical drawings for the farm. Another group took these drawings and turned them into small-scale indoor farming prototypes.

    After extensive testing, the team selected the best prototype and developed the full-scale project, known as M Farm.

    The student won a competitive grant of A$50,000 from the NSW Department of Communities and Justice Innovation Fund. This funded construction of the farm.

    Another grant from the University of NSW supported a solar-powered food waste composting machine. The machine converts daily food waste from the entire prison into organic fertiliser. This means less food waste is sent to landfill, saving costs and reducing emissions.

    Produce from the farm is used in the prison café. Since November 2023, the farm has supplied about $3,500 worth of produce to the café.

    Last year, about 30 items were entered in the local agricultural show. M Farm won first place in the district for best fresh produce.

    M Farm has grown award-winning fresh produce.
    Macquarie Correctional Centre Media Unit

    Cooperation is key to success

    Inmates ran the project and enjoyed tangible benefits such as access to fresh produce and a sense of accomplishment and pride.

    The project proved inmates can be productive without constant oversight. Similar results were achieved in a community-based vegetable gardening initiative in Girona, Spain, where residents formed an intensive farming cooperative without local council administration.

    The prison officers also benefited from being part of the process and took pride in the results. They also shared the benefits in the on-site café, which is open to both inmates and prison staff.

    This experiment provides further evidence that engagement and collaboration through co-design can lead to social learning, or “informal mutual learning”.

    Empowering co-designers enables the development of solutions beyond initial expectations. The best approach is arming people with the skills they need to actively engage and co-lead in the decision-making processes.

    Tasty and nutritious leafy greens grow in the front garden at M Farm.
    Christian Tietz

    Make it grow

    The PhD thesis includes a co-design tool kit that other prisons worldwide can follow. Given the global prison population exceeds 11 million people, this presents an opportunity to develop a broad-scale sustainability initiative.

    Farming fresh produce in prisons has the potential to improve nutrition and wellbeing. It also offers environmental benefits such as producing compost, reducing waste and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

    Such projects also have the potential to give inmates confidence and hope, and provides them with skills and knowledge that can benefit the community after their release.

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

    – ref. How maximum security prison inmates and officers worked together to create a farm behind bars – https://theconversation.com/how-maximum-security-prison-inmates-and-officers-worked-together-to-create-a-farm-behind-bars-244962

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia doesn’t have a federal Human Rights Act – but the election clears the way for overdue reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Maguire, Professor in Human Rights and International Law, University of Newcastle

    Master1305/Shutterstock

    The Albanese government has achieved an historic re-election, substantially building its majority in the House of Representatives. Much has already been written about the potential for a more ambitious legislative program on the back of this result.

    That agenda should include substantive human rights reform. The government has the opportunity in its second term to enhance the protections we all deserve by legislating a national Human Rights Act.

    Australia’s human rights framework

    Australia presents itself – and is largely ranked – as a global leader in protecting civil and political rights.

    It has a strong history of commitment to the UN’s human rights agenda, including as a party to seven core human rights treaties. Australia is also an enthusiastic participant in international human rights monitoring processes, including the Universal Periodic Review.

    Yet Australia also receives persistent international criticism, notably in relation to the rights of Indigenous peoples, refugees and asylum seekers.

    Australia has a dualist legal system. The Australian government can consent to treaty obligations that are binding on state parties, but those obligations are not absorbed into domestic law. This limits Australia’s capacity to meet its human rights obligations, because many are unenforceable under domestic law.

    Instead, Australia has built a patchwork human rights system. The Constitution affords only minimal rights protections, including the right to vote and the right to a trial by jury for certain offences.

    Only Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland have passed human rights legislation. But state laws do not include comprehensive protection for all the human rights protected by the treaties Australia has signed.

    Recently in Queensland, the LNP government rejected the recommendations of a review into the state’s Human Rights Act that would have enhanced the right to adequate housing and the right to be free from gender-based violence.

    At the federal level, parliament has a process for human rights scrutiny of legislation, but has not passed a comprehensive national human rights law.

    The path forward

    Between 2019 and 2023, the Australian Human Rights Commission conducted a national inquiry, Free & Equal. Its final report recommended major reforms including the passage of a Human Rights Act.

    A separate inquiry by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also proposed national human rights laws. These inquiries provided model legislation for parliament’s consideration.

    A Human Rights Act would remedy gaps in Australia’s compliance with its international obligations. Importantly for Australians, an act would provide comprehensive and enforceable protection for the rights we are all entitled to.

    Where does the government stand?

    Labor’s national platform notes Australia is an outlier due to its lack of comprehensive human rights legislation. It commits a federal Labor government to:

    consider whether our commitment to the implementation of human rights standards could be enhanced through a statutory Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, or similar instrument.

    In its first term, the Albanese government acted quickly to ensure that the Australian Human Rights Commission retained global A-status accreditation. It also conducted the promised parliamentary review into Australia’s human rights framework. However, it is yet to respond to the recommendations of that review.

    The prospects of human rights law reform seemed slim in the immediate aftermath of the Voice referendum. The government appeared hesitant to make policy commitments in Indigenous affairs.

    Yet Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Katie Kiss argued the referendum outcome highlighted the urgency of reform that would realise “even the most basic human rights” of Indigenous people.

    The time is right

    An argument can be made that the values expressed as central to the government’s second term agenda are tightly aligned with the values of the international human rights framework.

    In his speech on election night, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said:

    Today, the Australian people have voted for Australian values. For fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all. For the strength to show courage in adversity and kindness to those in need.

    He went on to highlight areas of need to ensure that every Australian has “the opportunity to be their best”, which included:

    • fair pay for workers and a right to disconnect
    • secure housing
    • equal pay and social equity for women
    • access to quality education for all students
    • the National Disability Insurance Scheme
    • protection for a healthy environment
    • equal rights for First Nations people
    • Medicare.

    These are all matters of central concern to the electorate. We may not talk about them all the time in human rights language, but they are also human rights issues.

    Australia is a party to human rights treaties that protect fair working conditions, an adequate standard of living and a right to health, women’s rights, the right to education, the rights of people with disabilities and Indigenous peoples, and the right to a healthy environment.

    The ground has been laid for comprehensive human rights reform in Australia. This project could unite “Australian values” of fairness and equity with protection of human rights in Australian law.

    We all stand to gain from opening our national conversation to human rights principles.

    Amy Maguire holds an Australian Research Council fellowship. Her industry partner is the Australian Human Rights Commission.

    – ref. Australia doesn’t have a federal Human Rights Act – but the election clears the way for overdue reform – https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-have-a-federal-human-rights-act-but-the-election-clears-the-way-for-overdue-reform-255863

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Gender quotas are the only way for the Liberals to go: Simon Birmingham

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

    The Liberals’ former Senate Leader Simon Birmingham has urged the party to adopt quotas for its women in parliament, in an excoriating post-election critique.

    Birmingham, a leading moderate who retired from parliament in January, says given the Liberals’ parliamentary representation will be at an all-time low, “such quotas could and should be hard, fast and ambitious”.

    “There must be a reshaping of the party to connect it with the modern Australian community. Based on who’s not voting Liberal, it must start with women. Based on where they’re not voting, it must focus on metropolitan Australia.”

    In a LinkedIn post, Birmingham admits the concept of quotas might be “somewhat illiberal”.

    “But I struggle to think of any alternatives if there is to be a new direction that truly demonstrates change and truly guarantees that the party will better reflect the composition of modern society.”

    “Standing in the way of such changes are an increasingly narrow membership base, both in numbers and outlook,” he says

    The Liberals have committed to targets for women but without success in reaching them. There has been strong opposition within the party to quotas.

    Former Liberal speaker Andrew Wallace told Sky on Tuesday, “I am uncomfortable with quotas because fundamentally I believe that the best person for the job should get the job”.

    Birmingham suggests the next Liberal leader should consider the use of citizen assemblies “to re-engage back into candidate selection and policy formulation the very forgotten people who Menzies spoke of. Small business owners. Leaders of sporting, multicultural, service and other community organisations. Skilled professionals, especially professional women.

    “The party can no longer expect such people to come to it as members but must find new ways to go to them.”

    Birmingham says lessons from previous failures haven’t been learned.

    He writes that “nothing can be sacrosanct if the party is to find a pathway to relevance with new generations of voters”.

    “The broad church model of a party that successfully melds liberal and conservative thinking is clearly broken. The Liberal party is not seen as remotely liberal and the brand of conservatism projected is clearly perceived as too harsh and  out of touch.

    “A Liberal Party fit for the future will need to reconnect with and represent liberal ideology, belief and thinking in a new and modern context.”

    Birmingham says Australians still  seek the freedoms liberalism stands for. “Yet in 2025 the Liberal Party is seen as grudging if not intolerant of the way some exercise those freedoms. It must be a party that respects all individual choices, actions and opinions, in the way John Stuart Mill articulated 200 years ago, limited only when they would cause harm to others.

    “Respect, inclusion and freedom can stand together, with support for all families, and enterprises. But not alongside judgemental attitudes that exclude or isolate some.”

    Birmingham says the party has to reconcile itself on policy questions “from the size and role of government, through challenges of our time like budget sustainability, climate change and national security”.

    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. Gender quotas are the only way for the Liberals to go: Simon Birmingham – https://theconversation.com/gender-quotas-are-the-only-way-for-the-liberals-to-go-simon-birmingham-255958

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: As Warren Buffett prepares to retire, does his investing philosophy have a future?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angel Zhong, Professor of Finance, RMIT University

    Warren Buffett, the 94-year-old investing legend and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, has announced plans to step down at the end of this year.

    His departure will mark the end of an era for value investing, an investment approach built on buying quality companies at reasonable prices and holding them for the long term.

    Buffett’s approach transformed Berkshire Hathaway from a small textile business in the 1960s into a giant conglomerate now worth more than US$1.1 trillion (A$1.7 trillion).

    He built his fortune backing US industry in energy and insurance and American brands, including big stakes in household names such as Coca-Cola, American Express and Apple.

    At Berkshire’s annual meeting at the weekend, held in an arena with thousands of devoted investors, Buffett named Greg Abel as his successor.

    Abel, 62, is currently chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, as well as vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway’s vast non-insurance operations.

    He’s known for his disciplined, no-nonsense management style. The company’s board has now voted unanimously to approve the move.

    This changing of the guard comes at a pivotal moment. Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency has already delivered significant economic policy shifts.

    Meanwhile, questions about US economic dominance grow louder against China’s continued rise.

    The ‘Oracle of Omaha’

    Few names command as much respect in the world of finance as Warren Buffett. Born in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1930, Buffett displayed an early genius for numbers and investing. He bought his first stock at age 11.

    His investment philosophy – buying undervalued companies with strong fundamentals – would later earn him the nickname the “Oracle of Omaha” for his uncanny ability to predict market trends and identify winning investments years before others did.

    Value investing

    Buffett drew his investment approach from the value investment principles of British-born US economist Benjamin Graham.

    He preferred businesses with lasting advantages and a clear value proposition. Some of his key investments included insurance company GEICO, railroad company BNSF, and more recently Chinese electric vehicle maker BYD.

    He avoided speculative bubbles (such as the dotcom bubble of the late 1990s and, more recently, cryptocurrencies) and preached long-term patience to investors. As he famously wrote in a 1988 letter to shareholders:

    In fact, when we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever.

    Buffett’s guidance helped Berkshire navigate many economic booms and recessions. Over his six decades at the helm, the company delivered impressive compounded annual returns of almost 20% – virtually double those of the S&P 500 index.

    Beyond financial success, Buffett championed ethical business practices and pledged to donate more than 99% of his wealth through the Giving Pledge, which he cofounded with Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates.



    Read more:
    How Warren Buffett’s enormous charitable gifts reflect the ‘inner scorecard’ that has guided him up to the billionaire’s planned retirement

    Challenges to Buffett’s strategy in today’s world

    In an op-ed for the New York Times in 2008, Buffett famously shared the maxim that guides his investment decisions:

    Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful.

    But his strategy thrived in an era of increasing globalisation, free trade, and US economic supremacy. The world has shifted since Buffett’s heyday.

    There are concerns about the recent underperformance of value investing. Technology companies now dominate older industries.

    This raises questions about whether those who succeed Buffett can spot the next major industry disruptors.

    America first?

    Trump’s return as US president heralds major changes in economic policy. Trade restrictions might hurt some of Berkshire’s international investments. However, these same policies might benefit Buffett’s US-focused investments.

    The idea of US economic superiority also faces new questions. China may overtake the US economy in the 2030s. The US share of global economic output has fallen from about 22% in 1980 to about 15% today.

    Buffett’s “never bet against America” mantra faces new scrutiny.

    Warren Buffett discusses trade deficits and protectionism on May 3.

    The challenges for Buffett’s successor

    Abel inherits a company with about US$348 billion (A$539 billion) in cash. That’s a serious amount of capital to deploy wisely amid global economic uncertainty and Trump’s trade war.

    Abel will likely maintain Berkshire’s core values while updating its approach. His challenges include:

    1. Maintaining the “Buffett premium”: Abel lacks Buffett’s cult-like following among investors, which may gradually erode the additional value the market assigns to Berkshire due to Buffett’s leadership.

      Without Buffett’s reputation, Abel may face increased pressure to effectively deploy Berkshire’s massive cash pile in a still-expensive stock market, where valuations are high and finding bargains is harder than ever.

    2. Technological adaptation: while Berkshire has increased its technology investments over the years (including positions in Apple and Amazon), balancing its legacy holdings (such as Coca-Cola and railroads) with growth sectors (AI, renewables) remains challenging.

    3. Environmental concerns: Berkshire Hathaway’s heavy reliance on coal and gas-fired utilities has drawn growing criticism as investors and regulators demand cleaner energy solutions.

    4. Replicating the “golden touch”: Buffett’s genius wasn’t just in picking stocks. It was also in capital allocation, deal-making, and crisis management (for example, buying into Goldman Sachs during the global financial crisis). Can Abel replicate that?

    After Buffett

    Buffett’s principles – patience, intrinsic value and betting on America – are timeless. But the world has moved on. His successor must navigate geopolitical risks, technological disruption, and the rise of passive investing while preserving Berkshire’s unique culture.

    The post-Buffett era represents more than just a leadership change. It’s a test of whether Buffett’s principles can survive in an increasingly short-term, technology-dominated, and geopolitically complex world.

    Abel’s leadership will reveal the enduring power – or limitations – of Buffett’s philosophy.

    Angel Zhong 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. As Warren Buffett prepares to retire, does his investing philosophy have a future? – https://theconversation.com/as-warren-buffett-prepares-to-retire-does-his-investing-philosophy-have-a-future-255867

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why do some people get a curved back as they age and what can I do to avoid it?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jakub Mesinovic, Research Fellow at the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University

    fran_kie/Shutterstock

    As we age, it’s common to notice posture changes: shoulders rounding, head leaning forward, back starting to curve. You might associate this with older adults and wonder: will this happen to me? Can I prevent it?

    It’s sometimes called “hunchback” or “roundback”, but the medical term for a curved back is kyphosis.

    When the curve is beyond what’s considered normal (greater than 40 degrees), we refer to this as hyperkyphosis. In more severe cases, it may lead to pain, reduced mobility and physical function, or lower quality of life.

    Here’s how it happens, and how to reduce your risk.

    What causes a curved back?

    A healthy spine has an elongated s-shape, so a curve in the upper spine is completely normal.

    But when that curve becomes exaggerated and fixed (meaning you can’t stand up straight even if you try), it can signal a problem.

    One common cause of a curved back is poor posture. This type, called postural kyphosis, usually develops over time due to muscle imbalances, particularly in younger people who spend hours:

    • hunched over a desk
    • slouched in a chair, or
    • looking down at a phone.

    Fortunately, this kind of curved back is often reversible with the right exercises, stretches and posture awareness.

    When the curve in your back becomes exaggerated and fixed, it can signal a problem.
    Undrey/Shutterstock

    Older adults often develop a curved back, known as age-related kyphosis or hyperkyphosis.

    This is usually due to wear and tear in the spine, including vertebral compression fractures, which are tiny cracks in the bones of the spine (vertebrae).

    These cracks are most often caused by osteoporosis, a condition that makes bones more fragile with age.

    In these cases, it’s not just bad posture – it’s a structural change in the spine.

    Older adults often develop a curved back, known as age-related kyphosis or hyperkyphosis.
    nhk_nhk/Shutterstock

    How can you tell the difference?

    Signs of age-related hyperkyphosis include:

    • your back curves even when you try to stand up straight
    • back pain or stiffness
    • a loss of height (anything greater than 3-4 centimetres compared to your peak adult height may be considered outside of “normal” ageing).

    Other causes of a curved back include:

    • Scheuermann’s kyphosis (which often develops during adolescence when the bones in the spine grow unevenly, leading to a forward curve in the upper back)
    • congenital kyphosis (a rare condition present from birth, caused by improper formation of the spinal bones. It can result in a more severe, fixed curve that worsens as a child grows)
    • scoliosis (where the spine curves sideways into a c- or s-shape when viewed from behind), and
    • lordosis (an excessive inward curve in the lower back, when viewed from the side).

    In addition to these structural conditions, arthritis, and in rare cases, spinal injuries or infections, can also play a role.

    Should I see a doctor about my curved back?

    Yes, especially if you’ve noticed a curve developing, have ongoing back pain, or have lost height over time.

    These can be signs of vertebral fractures, which can occur in the absence of an obvious injury, and are often painless.

    While one in five older adults have a vertebral fracture, as many as two-thirds of these fractures are not diagnosed and treated.

    In Australia, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and Healthy Bones Australia recommend a spine x-ray for:

    • people with kyphosis
    • height loss equal to or more than 3 centimetres, or
    • unexplained back pain.

    What can I do to reduce my risk?

    If you’re young or middle-aged, the habits you build today matter.

    The best way to prevent a curved back is to keep your bones strong, muscles active, and posture in check. That means:

    • doing regular resistance training, especially targeting upper back muscles
    • staying physically active, aiming for at least 150 minutes per week
    • getting enough protein, calcium, and vitamin D to support bone and muscle health
    • avoiding smoking and limiting alcohol to reduce risk factors that worsen bone density and overall wellbeing

    Pay attention to your posture while sitting and standing. Position your head over your shoulders and shoulders over your hips. This reduces strain on your spine.

    If you’re young or middle-aged, the habits you build today matter.
    Doucefleur/Shutterstock

    What exercises help prevent and manage a curved back?

    Focus on exercises that strengthen the muscles that support an upright posture, particularly the upper back and core, while improving mobility in the chest and shoulders.

    In general, you want to prioritise extension-based movements. These involve straightening or lifting the spine and pulling the shoulders back.

    Repeated forward-bending (or flexion) movements may make things worse, especially in people with osteoporosis or spinal fractures.

    Good exercises include:

    • back extensions (gently lift your chest off the floor while lying face down)
    • resistance exercises targeting the muscles between your shoulder blades
    • weight-bearing activities (such as brisk walking, jogging, stair climbing, or dancing) to keep bones strong and support overall fitness
    • stretching your chest and hip flexors to open your posture and relieve tightness.

    Flexibility and balance training (such as yoga and pilates) can be beneficial, particularly for posture awareness, balance, and mobility. But research increasingly supports muscle strengthening as the cornerstone of prevention and management.

    Muscle strengthening exercises, such as weight lifting or resistance training, reduces spinal curvature while enhancing muscle and bone mass.

    If you suspect you have kyphosis or already have osteoporosis or a vertebral fracture, consult a health professional before starting an exercise program. There may be some activities to avoid.

    Resistance training is crucial.
    Yakobchuk Yiacheslav/Shutterstock

    Can a curved back be reversed?

    If it’s caused by poor posture and muscle weakness, then yes, it’s possible.

    But if it’s caused by bone changes, especially vertebral fractures, then full reversal is unlikely. However, treatment can reduce pain, improve function, and slow further progression.

    Protecting your posture isn’t just about appearance. It’s about staying strong, mobile and independent as you age.

    Jakub Mesinovic has received competitive research funding from the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF).

    David Scott has received consulting fees from Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, Abbott Nutrition and Alexion AstraZenica. He has received research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Research Council (ARC), Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF), American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), Alexion AstraZenica, Healthy Bones Australia and Amgen Australia. He is a member of the International Osteoporosis Foundation’s Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    – ref. Why do some people get a curved back as they age and what can I do to avoid it? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-some-people-get-a-curved-back-as-they-age-and-what-can-i-do-to-avoid-it-252811

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Labor settled the ‘funding wars’ just before the election. Here are 4 big issues schools still face

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stewart Riddle, Professor, School of Education, University of Southern Queensland

    Days before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the federal election, the Labor government settled a long-running argument with the states over school funding.

    This locked in a new 25%–75% split on federal and state funding for schools. It also committed to “fully funding” public schools by 2034, according to the requirements recommended by the Gonski report in 2011.

    But apart from Peter Dutton’s criticism of the curriculum – suggesting students were being “indocrinated” – schools barely figured in the campaign.

    In his victory speech, Albanese declared his new government would deliver on the values of “fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all”.

    Education is the engine room for all three of these. Now Labor has been returned for a second term, what should the priorities be for schooling?

    1. The teacher shortage

    Teachers are burning out and leaving the profession at an alarming rate. We are due to have a shortage of 4,100 high school teachers in 2025.

    There is a large body of research showing unsustainable workload is a key issue. Teachers have also lost professional autonomy and status, while facing increased scrutiny based on standardised test results and accountability metrics.

    A study of 65,000 Australian media articles from 1996 to 2020 found overwhelmingly negative portrayals of teachers, who have been blamed for education failures.

    There needs to be a national response to the teaching workforce crisis that goes beyond the piecemeal approach of previous plans, such as 2022’s National Teacher Workforce Action Plan.

    We need a more coordinated and extensive campaign to attract and retain teachers. This will take substantial time and financial investment.

    2. Student disengagement

    Likewise, we need strategies to support and enable students to participate fully in schooling. Issues around school refusal and attendance are increasing across Australia. A comprehensive response is needed, which addresses the broad range of social, economic, health and wellbeing factors at play.

    Simple policy “fixes” such as prepackaged lessons, mandated explicit teaching practices, or phonics screening will do little to re-engage marginalised young people.

    Schools need to be able to provide inclusive and supportive learning environments, which cater to the diverse needs and interests of their students and communities.

    This requires school-specific approaches to the curriculum, teaching methods and school climate (or the quality of school life), rather than further standardisation.

    3. Educational inequality

    Australia has one of the most unequal schooling systems in the OECD.
    As the MySchool website notes, “there is a substantial body of research evidence that shows the educational performance of students […] is related to certain characteristics of their family […] and school”.

    Put another way, there is a persistent link between postcodes and educational access and outcomes for Australian students.

    Fully funding public schools in communities facing complex disadvantage is a start, but much more is needed to reverse the policy settings that have entrenched inequality in Australian schooling.

    The combined effects of more than two decades of standardisation (including a focus on high-stakes tests) and marketisation (where schools compete for students) have hollowed out public education in Australia.

    There needs to be a bold plan to reshape Australian schools as engines of equality.

    4. Global uncertainty

    Schools need to be places where young people can not only learn about the world, but also how to get along in the world. This need has arguably become even more pressing.

    With the re-election of US President Donald Trump, the world has become more uncertain and more complex. We also know Australian students’ civics knowledge is at its lowest since testing began.

    Making schools more welcoming and inclusive for students from diverse backgrounds is one way to help build a more democratic future in which difference is celebrated and lasting social bonds are formed.

    Giving young people the opportunity to collaborate on problems that matter to their communities (for example, climate change) can also help make them more engaged and critical thinkers.

    In collaborating on problems, schools use traditional curriculum resources as well as local knowledge and cultural wisdom, which helps to connect young people to their schools and communities.

    The Australian Curriculum already provides the opportunity for schools to do this work, but is often pushed aside in the drive for increased literacy and numeracy test results.

    Time for a bold vision

    To deliver on Albanese’s promise of “fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all”, the Australian government must do much more than provide extra funding for schools.

    Now is the time for a big, bold vision of education for all young Australians. This needs to involve the teaching workforce, students from all backgrounds, and a consideration of the skills and knowledge needed to meet the challenges of a complex and volatile world.

    Stewart Riddle receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Labor settled the ‘funding wars’ just before the election. Here are 4 big issues schools still face – https://theconversation.com/labor-settled-the-funding-wars-just-before-the-election-here-are-4-big-issues-schools-still-face-255870

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Office design isn’t keeping up with post-COVID work styles – here’s what workers really want

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ozgur Gocer, Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney

    Flexible work has become the new norm, despite the best efforts of companies calling workers back to the office.

    Some employers assume that a return to the old ways of working is both possible and desirable. But for many workers, their perception of the office environment has changed.

    According to our new study, only 27% of surveyed office workers now spend more than 30 hours a week at their workplace — down from 69% before the pandemic. That was typical of a predominantly full-time office-based culture.

    And one in four office workers spends fewer than ten hours a week at the office.

    The study draws on the Building Occupants Survey System Australia (BOSSA), a large database that assesses worker satisfaction with the indoor environmental quality of their office building. It also considers the role of demographic and personal factors in shaping workplace experiences.

    To understand changes in work patterns before and after COVID, we analysed 5,644 surveys pre- and post-COVID. They covered 157 Australian office buildings, mostly in Sydney (81), Melbourne (39) and Brisbane(21).

    Who has cut their office hours the most?

    The trend towards more flexible work reflects broader cultural changes in how Australians work. Flexibility has become essential – not just a pandemic-era necessity.

    In our study, women and employees aged 30–50 reported the most substantial drop in weekly office hours, especially among those who had been working more than 30 hours a week in the office pre-COVID. This reduction likely reflects increased family responsibilities for those respondents – such as school drop-offs or being available during school holidays – alongside a broader pursuit of work-life balance.

    Managers and women are among those most likely to work flexibly.
    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Many in this age group hold mid-career or leadership roles, where autonomy and adaptability in work schedules become crucial. The hybrid work model offers this flexibility. It enables employees to better navigate professional demands and care-giving duties.

    This is especially important for women, who continue to do the majority of housework and caring responsibilities. Employees over 50 may return to the office due to lower technological confidence or a preference for face-to-face interaction.

    Office design isn’t keeping up

    Yet the return to the office hasn’t meant a return to the old ways of working. This research shows significant declines in satisfaction with key office factors, including:

    • space functionality and aesthetic experience
    • daylight and external view access
    • personal control over office environment.

    Privacy and disruption – relating to noise, interruptions and lack of visual privacy – emerged as the strongest predictor of productivity and workplace health. Employees said quiet, private spaces were vital for focused work and mental well-being.

    Despite its challenges, working from home is often perceived as more conducive to work-life balance and more cost-effective for both workers and companies.

    What needs to change in office design?

    The contrast between the autonomy and comfort of home offices and the constraints of traditional office spaces may partially explain the decline in workplace satisfaction.

    Better design: Office workers are asking for quiet areas and home-like comforts in the office.
    Shutterstock

    Notably, the shift towards working from home has reshaped employees’ expectations. This has led to a decline in satisfaction with traditional office environments.

    Despite the prevalence of remote work, a substantial portion of employees still operate from the same pre-pandemic workplaces.

    As flexible work schedules become the norm, a shift in the notion of the workplace is underway. Spaces need to be designed not just for individual tasks, but to foster collaboration, innovation and social connections.

    Job flexibility has become an essential feature that drives employee satisfaction and engagement. Employees surveyed say they want updated spaces that support both privacy and social interactions:

    I do my best thinking in inspiring spaces. Natural light, spacious meeting rooms, modern furniture, quiet areas, sit/stand desks.

    Another survey respondent explained:

    It would be good to have more private spaces for online meetings, and also to escape from noise.

    This change in employee expectations calls for new office builds with environments that enhance employees’ wellbeing. Workers are asking for features such as comfortable home-like spaces and health-conscious amenities.

    The survey results show workers’ key post-pandemic design priorities include reduced density, physical distancing, reconfigured layouts and better ventilation.

    To improve indoor environmental quality, facilities teams should adopt a holistic approach that combines improved air movement with advanced filtration systems for better air quality, workplace acoustics and greater employee control over environmental settings.

    The workplace is under pressure to evolve into a dynamic, human-centered environment that supports both productivity and personal fulfilment. Many workers surveyed said they would be willing to move to a new office for a better office environment.

    Richard de Dear receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Ozgur Gocer and Thomas Parkinson 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. Office design isn’t keeping up with post-COVID work styles – here’s what workers really want – https://theconversation.com/office-design-isnt-keeping-up-with-post-covid-work-styles-heres-what-workers-really-want-254997

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What’s the difference between osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giovanni E. Ferreira, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, Institute of Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney

    Douglas Olivares/Shutterstock.

    Arthritis – an umbrella term for around 100 conditions that damage the joints – affects 4.1 million Australians. This is expected to rise by 31% to 5.4 million by 2040 and cost the Australian health-care system an estimated $12 billion each year.

    The two most common types, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, can both cause joint pain, swelling and stiffness. Both are more common in women. Neither can be cured.

    But their causes, risk factors and treatments are different – here’s what you need to know.

    What is osteoarthritis?

    Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis. It affects 2.1 million Australians, mostly older people. About a third of Australians aged 75 and older have the condition.

    It can affect any joint but is most common in the knees, hips, fingers, thumbs and big toes.

    The main symptom is pain, especially during movement. Other symptoms may include swelling, stiffness and changes to the shape of joints.

    The main risk factors are ageing and obesity, as well as previous injuries or surgery. For osteoarthritis in the hands, genetics also play a big role.

    Signs of osteoarthritis can appear on knee scans from around age 45 and become more common with age.

    However, this type of arthritis not simply the “wear and tear” of ageing. Osteoarthritis is a complex disease that affects the whole joint. This includes the cartilage (“shock-absorbing” connective tissue protecting your bones), bones, ligaments (connective tissue holding bones and body parts in place) and joint lining.

    Osteoarthritis can change the shape of joints such as knuckles.
    joel bubble ben/Shutterstock

    How is it diagnosed?

    Diagnosis is based on symptoms (such as pain and restricted movement) and a physical exam.

    The disease generally worsens over time and cannot be reversed. But the severity of damage does not always correlate with pain levels.

    For this reason, x-rays and MRI scans are usually unhelpful. Some people with early osteoarthritis experience severe pain, but the damage won’t show up on a scan. Others with advanced and visible osteoarthritis may have few symptoms or none at all.

    What about rheumatoid arthritis?

    Unlike osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease. This means the immune system attacks the joint lining, causing inflammation and damage.

    Common symptoms include pain, joint swelling and stiffness, especially in the morning.

    Rheumatoid arthritis is less common than osteoarthritis, affecting around 514,000 Australians. It mostly impacts the wrists and small joints in the hands and feet, though larger joints such as the elbows, shoulders, knees and ankles can also be involved.

    It can also affect other organs, including the skin, lungs, eyes, heart and blood vessels. Fortunately, disease outside the joint has become less common in recent years, likely due to better and earlier treatment.

    Rheumatoid arthritis often develops earlier than osteoarthritis but can occur at any age. Onset is most frequent in those aged 35–64. Smoking increases your risk.

    How is it diagnosed?

    As with osteoarthritis, your doctor will diagnose rheumatoid arthritis based on your symptoms and a physical exam.

    Some other tests can be useful. Blood tests may pick up specific antibodies that indicate rheumatoid arthritis, although you can still have the condition with negative results.

    X-rays may also reveal joint damage if the disease is advanced. If there is uncertainty, an ultrasound or MRI can help detect inflammation.


    The Conversation, CC BY-SA

    How is osteoarthritis treated?

    No treatment can stop osteoarthritis progressing. However many people manage their symptoms well with advice from their doctor and self-care. Exercise, weight management and pain medicines can help.

    Exercise has been shown to be safe for osteoarthritis of the knee, hip and hand. Many types of exercise are effective at reducing pain, so you can choose what suits you best.

    For knee osteoarthritis, managing weight through diet and/or exercise is strongly recommended. This may be because it reduces pressure on the joint or because losing weight can reduce inflammation. Anti-obesity medicines may also reduce pain.

    Exercise can help manage weight and is safe and effective at managing joint pain.
    gelog67/Shutterstock

    Topical and oral anti-inflammatories are usually recommended to manage pain. However, opioids (such as tramadol or oxycodone) are not, due to their risks and limited evidence they help.

    In some cases antidepressants such as duloxetine may also be considered as a treatment for pain though, again, evidence they help is limited.

    What about rheumatoid arthritis?

    Treatments for rheumatoid arthritis focus on preventing joint damage and reducing inflammation.

    It’s essential to get an early referral to a rheumatologist, so that treatment with medication – called “disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs” – can begin quickly.

    These medicines suppress the immune system to stop inflammation and prevent damage to the joint.

    With no cure, the overall goal is to achieve remission (where the disease is inactive) or get symptoms under control.

    Advances in treatment

    There is an increasing interest in prevention for both types of arthritis.

    A large international clinical trial is currently investigating whether a diet and exercise program can prevent knee osteoarthritis in those with higher risk – in this case, women who are overweight and obese.

    For those already affected, new medicines in early-stage clinical trials show promise in reducing pain and improving function.

    There is also hope for rheumatoid arthritis with Australian researchers developing a new immunotherapy. This treatment aims to reprogram the immune system, similar to a vaccine, to help people achieve long-term remission without lifelong treatment.

    Giovanni E. Ferreira receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council, HCF Research Foundation, and Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation.

    Rachelle Buchbinder receives research funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, the Australian government, HCF Foundation and Arthritis Australia.

    – ref. What’s the difference between osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-osteoarthritis-and-rheumatoid-arthritis-249154

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The ‘feminisation’ of Labor is a key reason Australians embraced it – and Anthony Albanese

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Strangio, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Monash University

    Watching elections over the decades, one thing that has struck me is that results are invariably hyperbolised in the first blush of the people’s verdict. The achievement of the winners is over-egged in the commentary, as is the scale of the calamity suffered by the losers.

    That caveat notwithstanding, I think we can credibly say that Saturday’s election result was the most momentous since John Howard’s totemic victory of 2001 — a win that set in train much of what has happened in Australian politics over the course of this century.

    As I suggested in my pre-election essay on Anthony Albanese’s prime ministership, the impending victory for Labor would in part be an endorsement, even if grudging, of his leadership of the nation. It would be a reward for the fact that, despite limitations, he had run an industrious, orderly, united and scandal-free government. His was a mature administration that the country had been bereft of for nearly two decades.

    But the magnitude of Labor’s triumph on Saturday was undoubtedly most of all a repudiation of Duttonism. It was an emphatic assertion of what Australia is not. Why that makes this election the most significant since 2001 is that Dutton was an ideological heir to Howard — as before him was Tony Abbott, notwithstanding the latter’s idiosyncratic influence by the philosophy of the post-war right-wing Catholic crusader, B.A. Santamaria.

    Dutton entered the House of Representatives at the 2001 election, and the early advance of his parliamentary career was nurtured by Howard. As he articulated during this campaign, Dutton regarded Howard as his political touchstone.

    Like Abbott’s, Dutton’s leadership of the Liberal Party represented a doubled down version of the conservative populism that Howard so effectively unleashed at the 2001 election.

    This was a point that Lech Blaine perceptively recognised in his chilling 2024 Quarterly Essay portrait of Dutton. In common with Abbott, Dutton’s rendition of Howardism was an aggressively crude variant. Moreover, both of these unequal proteges were wanting in their mentor’s masterful political dexterity. Antithetical to the heritage of the Liberal Party, they were also short of interest in, let alone aptitude for, economic policy.

    Howard’s conservative populism was directed at cleaving working-class voters off Labor, especially in outer suburban electorates of Australia. For some time, there has been an emerging expectation that Dutton was poised to fruitfully capitalise on an incipient revolt against the Albanese government in outer suburbia. That is, a belief that these seats were susceptible to swallowing whole Dutton’s Frankenstein version of Howardism.

    Dutton’s strategy for hunting after votes in the outer suburbs and the commentary that has attended to it did a disservice to those communities. Undoubtedly, their populations, fast growing and undergoing a tsunami of demographic change, are enduring severe economic duress and struggling with over-stretched infrastructure and services.

    But there has been too much of a readiness to extrapolate from this that they were ripe for embracing an angry, grievance-fuelled politics, that they were vulnerable to xenophobic dog whistling, that they were, in short, home to an uglier Australia.

    The rejection of Duttonism in outer suburbia Australia suggests that, to the contrary, because of their kaleidoscopic diversity of ethnicities and cultures, these communities shrink from a politics of divisiveness and nativism.

    In other words, the routing of the Liberals on Saturday ought to be the moment that finally closes the door on the direction that Howard orientated the party at the beginning of this century. It should be his last hurrah.

    The dilemma, of course, is that stripped of moderates (the idea of the vaunted “broad church” thriving under Howard was itself greatly exaggerated), there is a serious question of whether the Liberals can reverse their 25-year rightwards pivot.

    The new leader could begin the journey back towards the centre by never darkening the doors of Sky News after Dark. A folly of Abbott and Dutton was their tribal attitude to the media. They skewed their communications to reactionary sympathisers who, rather than providing a reality check, encouraged ideological amplification.



    Read more:
    In its soul-searching, the Coalition should examine its relationship with the media

    What of Albanese and his leadership? In my pre-election essay on him, I flagged a concern that victory would feed his self-narrative of always being under-estimated. That it would encourage him to stick fast to his first term modus operandi of cautious, dogged incrementalism at a point when the nation is overdue for a burst of expansive reformism. The scale of Saturday’s win arguably heightens that risk.

    Yet we do have to acknowledge that Albanese, fortunate though he has been with the incurably inauthentic Scott Morrison and then Dutton as opponents, has been under-estimated. He has insisted since 2022 that his was a two-term strategy in which the first would be about measured consolidation that would, in turn, open the path to a long-term Labor government whose legacy would be durable change. This result means the prime minister and his team now have the opportunity to achieve that.

    Watching the ABC’s election night broadcast, a chief takeaway was the conspicuous camaraderie among senior members of Albanese’s Labor cabinet. Treasurer Jim Chalmer’s sincerely generous words about the prime minister’s leadership exemplified that.

    During Labor’s first term, I wondered whether Chalmers, for all his virtues, was actually too much a patient team player and not enough of an agitator within the government. In other words, that he did not sufficiently ginger up Albanese for greater policy adventurism, as Paul Keating did Bob Hawke during the last great era of Labor reformism.

    But Saturday night spotlighted a different, but perhaps at least as equally valuable, dynamic at the top of the government. That is genuine respect, even affection, between its key personnel. Keating could never have been as laudable of Hawke as Chalmers was of Albanese as the votes were tallied.

    This says much about the character of Chalmers, as it does about other leading cabinet members who have exuded that spirit of camaraderie throughout the life of the government. Most notably, the prime minister’s brains trust: Richard Marles, Penny Wong, Tony Burke, Mark Butler and Katy Gallagher.

    But it must also reflect Albanese’s respect for his colleagues. It speaks to his ability to harmoniously manage a team, his gift for generating unity of purpose, and his willingness to afford ministers a self-empowering autonomy in contributing to Labor’s collective enterprise. These are no small things. Respect and decency in a government begins with the prime minister and filters down.

    Let us not get misty-eyed. Albanese is vulcanised by a lifetime in politics. He is tough and a ruthless foe. His political blooding was as a left faction functionary in the right-controlled New South Wales Labor Party. Intra-party knife fighting was an essential part of the skill set he developed.

    But, consistent with all prime ministers, to understand Albanese’s approach to leadership we need to return to his formative roots. He was fatherless, defined by being the only child of a single mum, disability pensioner. These circumstances, as former journalist Katharine Murphy identified, imbued him with a pronounced streak of self-sufficiency, a “lone wolf” aspect. Yet also discernible is a resulting “feminine” side to his character and his prime-ministerial style.

    Albanese readily exhibits empathy and emotion. A familiar sight of him is lips quivering as he struggles to suppress tears. He dares speak of kindness and compassion as positive leadership attributes — in this he evokes former New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern. And he practices a collaborative, cooperative minded governing operating mode, which are behaviours conventionally associated with women leaders.

    Not coincidentally, a striking feature of Albanese’s prime ministership is that the “feminisation” of Labor has proceeded apace. For instance, policies such as the movement towards universal childcare support and government-backed wage increases in the care industries whose workforce is dominated by women employees. The record proportion of women appointed to cabinet. The continuing storming of the ramparts of caucus by women — they now comprise a majority of the party room — reinforced at the federal election most spectacularly in Brisbane, where six additional female Labor candidates prevailed, including Ali France, slayer of Dutton. And the consolidation of the pattern of women voters favouring Labor.

    It’s unfashionable these days to quote the post-war lion of the Labor left, Jim Cairns. However, when he retired in 1977, Cairns was asked who he would like to inherit his seat. He replied, “a woman, they feel the value of life”. Perhaps a sentiment by which Albanese abides.

    In the past, Paul Strangio received funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. The ‘feminisation’ of Labor is a key reason Australians embraced it – and Anthony Albanese – https://theconversation.com/the-feminisation-of-labor-is-a-key-reason-australians-embraced-it-and-anthony-albanese-255883

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia and North America have long fought fires together – but new research reveals that has to change

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Doug Richardson, Research Associate in Climate Science, UNSW Sydney

    Climate change is lengthening fire seasons across much of the world. This means the potential for wildfires at any time of the year, in both hemispheres, is increasing.

    That poses a problem. Australia regularly shares firefighting resources with the United States and Canada. But these agreements rest on the principle that when North America needs these personnel and aircraft, Australia doesn’t, and vice versa. Climate change means this assumption no longer holds.

    The devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January, the United States winter, show how this principle is being tested. The US reportedly declined Australia’s public offer of assistance because Australia was in the midst of its traditional summer fire season. Instead, the US sought help from Canada and Mexico.

    But to what extent do fire seasons in Australia and North America actually overlap? Our new research examined this question.
    We found an alarming increase in the overlap of the fire seasons, suggesting both regions must invest far more in their own permanent firefighting capacity.

    What we did

    We investigated fire weather seasons – that is, the times of the year when atmospheric conditions such as temperature, humidity, rainfall and wind speed are conducive to fire.

    The central question we asked was: how many days each year do fire weather seasons in Australia and North America overlap?

    To determine this, we calculated the length of the fire weather seasons in the two regions in each year, and the number of days when the seasons occur at the same time. We then analysed reconstructed historical weather data to assess fire-season overlap for the past 45 years. We also analysed climate model data to assess changes out to the end of this century.

    And the result? On average, fire weather occurs in both regions simultaneously for about seven weeks each year. The greatest risk of overlap occurs in the Australian spring – when Australia’s season is beginning and North America’s is ending.

    The overlap has increased by an average of about one day per year since 1979. This might not sound like much. But it translates to nearly a month of extra overlap compared to the 1980s and 1990s.

    The increase is driven by eastern Australia, where the fire weather season has lengthened at nearly twice the rate of western North America. More research is needed to determine why this is happening.

    Longer, hotter, drier

    Alarmingly, as climate change worsens and the atmosphere dries and heats, the overlap is projected to increase.

    The extent of the overlap varied depending on which of the four climate models we used. Assuming an emissions scenario where global greenhouse gas emissions begin to stabilise, the models projected an increase in the overlap of between four and 29 days a year.

    What’s behind these differences? We think it’s rainfall. The models project quite different rainfall trends over Australia. Those projecting a dry future also project large increases in overlapping fire weather. What happens to ours and North America’s rainfall in the future will have a large bearing on how fire seasons might change.

    While climate change will dominate the trend towards longer overlapping fire seasons, El Niño and La Niña may also play a role.

    These climate drivers involve fluctuations every few years in sea surface temperature and air pressure in part of the Pacific Ocean. An El Niño event is associated with a higher risk of fire in Australia. A La Niña makes longer fire weather seasons more likely in North America.

    There’s another complication. When an El Niño occurs in the Central Pacific region, this increases the chance of overlap in fire seasons of North America and Australia. We think that’s because this type of El Niño is especially associated with dry conditions in Australia’s southeast, which can fuel fires.

    But how El Niño and La Niña will affect fire weather in future is unclear. What’s abundantly clear is that global warming will lead to more overlap in fire seasons between Australia and North America – and changes in Australia’s climate are largely driving this trend.

    Looking ahead

    Firefighters and their aircraft are likely to keep crossing the Pacific during fire emergencies.

    But it’s not difficult to imagine, for example, simultaneous fires occurring in multiple Australian states during spring, before any scheduled arrival of aircraft from the US or Canada. If North America is experiencing late fires that year and cannot spare resources, Australia’s capabilities may be exceeded.

    Likewise, even though California has the largest civil aerial firefighting fleet in the world, the recent Los Angeles fires highlighted its reliance on leased equipment.

    Fire agencies are becoming increasingly aware of this clash. And a royal commission after the 2019–20 Black Summer fires recommended Australia develop its own fleet of firefighting aircraft.

    Long, severe fire seasons such as Black Summer prompted an expansion of Australia’s permanent aerial firefighting fleet, but more is needed.

    As climate change accelerates, proactive fire management, such as prescribed burning, is also important to reduce the risk of uncontrolled fire outbreaks.

    Doug Richardson receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CE170100023) and the Germany-Australia Joint Research Cooperation Scheme, funded by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) and Universities Australia (RG230014)

    Andreia Filipa Silva Ribeiro receives funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) – Project number 530175554, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH) and the Germany-Australia Joint Research Cooperation Scheme, funded by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) and Universities Australia (RG230014).

    – ref. Australia and North America have long fought fires together – but new research reveals that has to change – https://theconversation.com/australia-and-north-america-have-long-fought-fires-together-but-new-research-reveals-that-has-to-change-254790

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why Zelensky – not Trump – may have ‘won’ the US-Ukraine minerals deal

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eve Warburton, Research Fellow, Department of Political and Social Change, and Director, Indonesia Institute, Australian National University

    Last week, the Trump administration signed a deal with Ukraine that gives it privileged access to Ukraine’s natural resources.

    Some news outlets described the deal as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “caving” to US President Donald Trump’s demands.

    But we see the agreement as the result of clever bargaining on the part of Ukraine’s war-time president.

    So, what does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this be help strengthen America’s mineral supply chains?

    Ukraine’s natural resource wealth

    Ukraine is home to 5% of the world’s critical mineral wealth, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as vital for defence, construction and high-tech manufacturing.

    However, there’s a big difference between resources (what’s in the ground) and reserves (what can be commercially exploited). Ukraine’s proven mineral reserves are limited.

    Further, Ukraine has an estimated mineral wealth of around US$14.8 trillion (A$23 trillion), but more than half of this is in territories currently occupied by Russia.

    What does the new deal mean for Ukraine?

    American support for overseas conflict is usually about securing US economic interests — often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled access for American firms to other countries’ oil, gas and minerals.

    But the first iteration of the Ukraine mineral deal, which Zelensky rejected in February, had been an especially brazen resource grab by Trump’s government. It required Ukraine to cede sovereignty over its land and resources to one country (the US), in order to defend itself from attacks by another (Russia).

    These terms were highly exploitative of a country fighting against a years-long military occupation. In addition, they violated Ukraine’s constitution, which puts the ownership of Ukraine’s natural resources in the hands of the Ukrainian people. Were Zelensky to accept this, he would have faced a tremendous backlash from the public.

    In comparison, the new deal sounds like a strategic and (potentially) commercial win for Ukraine.

    First, this agreement is more just, and it’s aligned with Ukraine’s short- and medium-term interests. Zelenksy describes it as an “equal partnership” that will modernise Ukraine.

    Under the terms, Ukraine will set up a United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund for foreign investments into the country’s economy, which will be jointly governed by both countries.

    Ukraine will contribute 50% of the income from royalties and licenses to develop critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the US can make its contributions in-kind, such as through military assistance or technology transfers.

    Ukraine maintains ownership over its natural resources and state enterprises. And the licensing agreements will not require substantial changes to the country’s laws, or disrupt its future integration with Europe.

    Importantly, there is no mention of retroactive debts for the US military assistance already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing other nations to seek to claim similar debts from Ukraine.

    Finally, the deal also signals the Trump administration’s commitment to “a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine” – albeit, still without any security guarantees.

    Profits may be a long time coming

    Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration and conservative media in the US are framing the deal as a win.

    For too long, Trump argues, Ukraine has enjoyed US taxpayer-funded military assistance, and such assistance now has a price tag. The administration has described the deal to Americans as a profit-making endeavour that can recoup monies spent defending Ukrainian interests.

    But in reality, profits are a long way off.

    The terms of the agreement clearly state the fund’s investment will be directed at new resource projects. Existing operations and state-owned projects will fall outside the terms of the agreement.

    Mining projects typically work within long time frames. The move from exploration to production is a slow, high-risk and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade.

    Add to this complexity the fact that some experts are sceptical Ukraine even has enormously valuable reserves. And to bring any promising deposits to market will require major investments.

    What’s perhaps more important

    It’s possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US. Boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important.

    Like other Western nations, the US is desperate to diversify its critical mineral supply chains.

    China controls not just a large proportion of the world’s known rare earths deposits, it also has a monopoly on the processing of most critical minerals used in green energy and defence technologies.

    The US fears China will weaponise its market dominance against strategic rivals. This is why Western governments increasingly make mineral supply chain resilience central to their foreign policy and defence strategies.

    Given Beijing’s closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals. The terms of the agreement are explicit: “states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction”.

    Finally, the performance of “the deal” matters just as much to Trump. Getting Zelensky to sign on the dotted line is progress in itself, plays well to Trump’s base at home, and puts pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to come to the table.

    So, the deal is a win for Zelensky because it gives the US a stake in an independent Ukraine. But even if Ukraine’s critical mineral reserves turn out to be less valuable than expected, it may not matter to Trump.

    Eve Warburton receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Westpac Scholars Trust.

    Olga Boichak is a director of the Foundation of Ukrainian Studies in Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Westpac Scholars Trust.

    – ref. Why Zelensky – not Trump – may have ‘won’ the US-Ukraine minerals deal – https://theconversation.com/why-zelensky-not-trump-may-have-won-the-us-ukraine-minerals-deal-255875

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How did sport become so popular? The ancient history of a modern obsession

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia

    Roman mosaics discovered in Sicily show women playing different sports. David Pineda Svenske/Shutterstock

    It’s almost impossible to go a day without seeing or hearing about sport.

    Walk around any city or town and you will almost always catch a glimpse of people playing sports in teams or participating solo.

    Turn on the TV or radio and you’ll be able to find some kind of sport being played at international or national level.

    Why do people love sport so much?

    To answer this question, it’s worth a dive back into ancient history.

    An ancient person’s perspective

    One of the most famous figures from the ancient world, Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), once wrote that when he was a boy he was obsessed with playing sports:

    I liked to play ball as a boy and my playing slowed my progress in learning to read and write.

    The earliest portrait of Saint Augustine in a 6th century fresco, Lateran, Rome.
    Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

    In fact, Saint Augustine was so preoccupied with playing ball that his teacher was said to sometimes beat him for it. His teacher said it was bad to waste one’s youth on such things – it’s better to study hard.

    Why was Saint Augustine obsessed with ball games? He loved to win:

    I loved to play games […] in these games I was overmastered by my vain desire to excel, so I used to strive to win, even by cheating.

    Plenty of people today probably share Saint Augustine’s view that winning is one of the things that make sport enjoyable.

    Of course, there are many other reasons why people might like to play sport.

    What sports did they play?

    If you walked down a city street in ancient Greek and Roman times, it’s likely you’d come across children or even adults playing a ball game.

    Handball games played in ancient Greece.
    Gardiner, E. Norman/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

    The Roman playwright Plautus (3rd/2nd century BC) even has one of his characters complain about people “who play ball in the street”.

    Ball games were probably the most popular sporting activity in the ancient world and could be played in many different ways.

    In one ball game, called episkyros, two teams competed against each other. If one team got the ball over the line behind the other team, they scored. Feet and hands could be used and tackles were permitted.

    Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

    Of course, many other sports were also popular: athletics, swimming, wrestling, lifting weights and boxing were all favourites.

    Ancient ideas about the origins of sports

    For the ancient Greeks, the earliest mention of a ball game appears in the Odyssey, an epic poem composed by the poet Homer in probably the eighth or seventh century BC.

    In the Odyssey, Nausicaa, daughter of the King of the Phaeacians, plays a ball game with some other girls on the beach. While they throw the ball, they sing songs:

    Then when they had had their joy of food, she and her handmaids, they threw off their headgear and fell to playing at ball, and white-armed Nausicaa was leader in the song.

    During the game, Nausicaa throws the ball too far. Her maid can’t catch it and the ball flies into the sea. All the girls shout out when it goes flying.

    Already in the 3rd century BC, Nausicaa was sometimes regarded as the inventor of ball games. However, other people attributed the invention of ball games to different regions of Greece, saying the games were invented by the Sicyonians or Spartans.

    But it is unlikely any Greeks were the original inventors of ball games.

    In Egypt, thousands of years before Homer’s epics, there are already artistic depictions of ball games.

    For example, in the tomb of the Nomarch of the 11th Dynasty (c. 2150-2000 BC), Baqet III, there is artwork showing women playing ball games and men wrestling each other.

    Ancient ball games.
    J. Murray/Picryl, CC BY

    Baqet III, whose tomb contained these artistic depictions of various sports, was likely a true sports lover.

    Why did people like sports?

    People liked ball games for many different reasons.

    One was for the sheer fun and excitement. Another was because they were considered a healthy type of exercise.

    Ancient Greek and Roman doctors even told their patients to play ball games to become healthier.

    For example, the famous ancient Greek physician Galen (129-216 AD) wrote an essay titled On Exercise with a Small Ball.

    He argued “exercises with a small ball are superior to other kinds of exercises”.

    He claimed ball games were especially healthy because they moved all of the muscles and because teamwork was good for the soul.

    People in the ancient world also thought just watching sport could be something worth doing.

    The writer Lucian of Samosata (born 120 AD), for instance, said watching athletes competing for glory could help to encourage men to achieve similar feats: “many of the spectators go away in love with manfulness and hard work”, wrote Lucian.

    So it seems there’s nothing new about our modern love of playing and watching sports, and this obsession will probably continue for thousands of years into the future.

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

    – ref. How did sport become so popular? The ancient history of a modern obsession – https://theconversation.com/how-did-sport-become-so-popular-the-ancient-history-of-a-modern-obsession-254057

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –